"To consider H.R. 7567, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026"
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Agriculture U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 1
And I'm proud of the input and contributions to this bill from members on both sides of the aisle. Since releasing the text of this legislation, well, this legislation has been mischaracterized in the press at times, and one of the most common misconceptions is related to the nutrition title. So I'd like to clear up any confusion about that now. Several investments across nutrition programs in the 2024 bill were not able to be included in this bill due to budgetary constraints and the inability to have bipartisan dialogue on offsets. This includes several of my priorities, including exemptions earned from employment and training programs and from adult children in the household from counting towards SNAP eligibility.
We also were not able to restore access to SNAP for certain formerly incarcerated individuals. Other provisions left out included crucial changes to strengthen the program integrity in SNAP. Unfortunately, I was informed that none of these provisions were a priority of the ranking member, and that's why the bill before us today is different than a bill two years ago. And while we've not abandoned these priorities, more work is needed to ensure these investments are responsibly funded. It is irresponsible to move forward a bill that increases mandatory spending with no offsets.
I also need to address the recent misguided reporting on conservation funding. Let me be clear. There are no cuts to the conversation title. Anyone saying otherwise is improperly analyzing the CVO score. Through the Working Families Tax Cuts Act, Republicans provide a historic investment into the permanent baseline of the conservation programs, an approximately 24% increase to the baseline.
Legislation before you contains an increase across the board in conservation funding compared to the Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2024 and the 2018 Farm Bill. While we were limited in the reconciliation process, this proposal includes the bipartisan policy improvements to assist beginning farmers advance soil health initiatives, protect private forest lands, and fund advancements in conservation technology. This title is widely supported by farmers, ranchers, foresters, sportsmen, and the environmental community. There's a lot of good being done here in this bill across all 12 titles. And for the good of the people we represent, I encourage all of you to vote based on what is in the bill, instead of based on what is not in the bill.
You know, the rank members denounced this bill because it doesn't contain year-round E15, doesn't provide emergency assistance for farmers, and doesn't change the tariff policy. I'm very supportive of all three of those things. It's just not our jurisdiction. If we were to broach those topics, we would need to be not the agriculture committee, but energy and commerce appropriations, and ultimately ways and means committee, and those are items outside of our jurisdiction. Not that I wouldn't like to see them get done in this congress.
Throughout the creation of this farm bill, it was an open and honest process. My door was open to anyone who had practical, actionable items for improving ag policy. Every member was given the opportunity to provide input. And if I didn't receive your priorities, that comes down to a breakdown in party leadership. However, this weather display has been a blessing in disguise. After hearing claims from over 300 Democratic priorities that were not brought forward, I was shocked.
And when my outreach to identify this list was ignored, I took action. So over the last week, I've been able to work individually with many of my Democratic colleagues to hear priorities that were not communicated to me over the last eight months of negotiations. I believe your dialogue will be fruitful for our process today. If you are disappointed a priority is not addressed in the text, please know that I understand, as the bill is missing many of my priorities as well. But we must not let perfect be the enemy of the good.
Today, I hope the committee will work its will to improve this legislation and incorporate additional feedback from the many voices we represent. Members on both sides will offer amendments with policies I support. However, I will reluctantly have to oppose any proposal that is not additive to the process and violates my goal of a bipartisan, cost-neutral farm bill. Today is a step forward, among many more to come. I commit to work with everyone who approaches the table in good faith, and I'll, as I have always done, meet the moment for our farmers, ranchers, foresters, and consumers.
Again, thank you all for your work and engagement thus far. Our farmers, ranchers, and rural communities are relying on us to step up and advocate for them as we work through the 12 titles of this bill. Now recognize the distinguished ranking member, the gentlelady from Minnesota, Miss Craig, for any opening remarks that she may have.
Speaker 2
Mister chairman, before I begin my opening remarks, I'd like to take a moment as well to acknowledge the unfortunate and tragic loss this committee and its members have experienced in recent weeks. Doug Lamaffa, who is no longer with us, but will always be with us. Jim Baird is attending, of course, to his family due to the recent passing of his wife Denise. And Jonathan Jackson, whose father, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, also died recently. My heart and the minority committee, our heart goes out to them and their families.
I'd also like to take a moment to acknowledge the brave men and women in the US armed forces currently in harm's way and the six who have already tragically lost their lives in the war with Iran. Mister chairman, as we consider this legislation, it's important for us to take stock of where we are today. And, I just wanna say I'm not gonna get in a rebuttal of process here, but 10% of our priorities that were handed to you were actually included in this bill. And over the last several weeks, instead of coming to committee staff or myself, your committee has gone straight to our members for some of those priorities we gave to you months ago, to try to cut a deal to get them to support an absolutely flawed farm bill. So we don't need to get into it this early, into a farm bill markup, but I think perhaps your committee staff and the fact that they never actually handed us this text in this entire process.
We saw it the night before the public did, and only because I complained publicly about seeing it at the very same time, tells everyone what this is. It has not been a bipartisan process. So with that, I want to start by saying, when you talk to farmers or farm groups, people who buy groceries or nutrition groups, the message we hear everywhere is the same. American ag and rural communities are hurting. Despite the administration's claims, all is not well in farm country.
Commodity prices are well below the cost of production. Farm incomes are declining. Input costs remain high, and farm bankruptcies are up 46% over last year. Americans of all walks of life are facing an affordability crisis, and much of this is the result of economic and trade policies enacted by this administration and enabled by Republicans in Congress. Mister chairman, it didn't have to be this way.
Republicans could have rejected the administration's global trade war that's devastated family farms and businesses across the country for the past year. The Supreme Court has now affirmed what we already knew. Congress, not the president, has the authority to levy tariffs. The president's trade war has been illegal this entire time, and Republicans have given up their power. Our Republican colleagues should have fought to expand domestic markets, not allow our largest trade partners to be pushed into the arms of our biggest agricultural competitors.
And Republicans should have worked with Democrats to pass a five-year 12-title farm bill. Instead, we are here to mark up a so-called skinny farm bill, the last pieces of the jigsaw puzzle of a farm bill. It didn't have to be this way. There are many policies this congress could undertake to fix what bad policy and partisanship have caused. Despite making massive cuts to title four in the so-called big beautiful bill and extending and modifying additional farm programs outside the regular process, Democrats entered into good faith negotiations with the majority.
It was my sincere hope that we could agree on what we could agree on, and leave out the more controversial elements of this bill that present issues for support for both some Democrats and Republicans. Today, we could move forward with the Farm and Family Relief Act. Today, we could pass year-round e 15. Today, we could amend and remove the poison pills in this bill. Sadly, Republicans seem determined to continue down the partisan path, which leads us to the bill before us today, and that we are about to mark up.
To be fair, there are some bipartisan provisions in this bill, which I appreciate because I led efforts on them. Codifying the Reconnect program to expand broadband access for rural Americans, making crop insurance more affordable and accessible for our veterans, and the PACE Act to improve credit and increase USDA loan limits. But despite those bipartisan elements of this bill, it represents a missed opportunity to address the most pressing challenges that our family farmers and our families are facing. And it contains those provisions that we know many Democrats will not support, and for the record, that many Republicans are hearing from the Maha community about as well. This bill will not restore lost export markets or lower input costs.
It doesn't help American children, seniors, and veterans afford their groceries or states and counties avoid an unfunded mandate that we, this body, Republican-led body, shifted those SNAP costs to them. The bill ignores hemp farmers in Minnesota and elsewhere who followed the law and innovated in a new marketplace, and whose entire supply chains and businesses are now under threat. It rolls back provisions from the 2024 Farm Bill that provide tribes with more access to USDA programs. My sincere hope is that the Senate will provide us a product that better meets the needs of the American farmer and rural communities, and that in the end, we can get a bipartisan product signed into law. I cannot vote for this bill today, but I remain hopeful that in the end, we will get the product that America's farmers and working people deserve.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
General Lee yields back. The bill H.R. 7567, the Farm, Food and Natural Security Act of 2026, is now before the committee for consideration. Without objection, the first reading of the bill will be waived, and it will be open for an amendment on a title-by-title basis, and after that for amendment at any point. I'd like to remind members that only amendments germane to the subject matter before us today shall be in order. No motion or proposition on a subject different than that under consideration shall be submitted under the color of amendment.
Pursuant to committee rule three I and house rule 11, clause two, the chair may postpone further proceedings today on the question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an amendment for which a recorded vote is ordered. And without objection, we will vote on amendments using an electronic voting system. I now recognize myself to offer a manager's amendment to H.R. 7567, which is at each member's spot on the rostrum. This amendment includes amendments that are technical in nature or to address scoring implications. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is waived.
Does any member wish to speak on the manager's amendment? Off to a good start, seeing none. The question is now on the manager's amendment. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye.
Opposed by saying no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the manager's amendment is agreed to. Moving on to the general debate. Any member who wishes to speak on the bill will be recognized under the five minute rule. Do members have any remarks on the bill?
Mister chairman. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanna take a moment and reflect on just how important the Farm Bill process is to our constituents and the American people. Just two weeks ago, massive wildfires ripped through Western Oklahoma and up to Kansas. Hundreds of thousands of acres were burned, homes and community centers were destroyed, and first responders in my district were injured on the job. It was truly devastating.
But this is certainly not the first time a disaster of this magnitude has occurred in Oklahoma. And I know I'm not the only member here whose district has been devastated by wildfires or other natural disasters. But events like these serve as a reminder to us that the programs we get to review in the farm bill discussions matter in more ways than we often realize. The permanent livestock program like LIP and LFP provide financial relief to producers who experience livestock and pasture losses through no fault of their own. Without these programs, producers would suffer undue economic hardship when they need assistance the most.
However, we have an opportunity today to vote for a bill that goes much farther than just disaster recovery. The bill before us is 802 pages of policy that is aimed at making life better back home. To name a few provisions among many, this bill reauthorizes a suite of critical research, rule development, and credit programs that will invest in our communities and create rural resiliency for decades to come. This bill also focuses on expanding and investing in market access programs of BROAD, and it ensures that voluntary conservation programs continue to reflect the needs of producers. The bottom line is all of these programs under review today make a difference.
I want everyone in this room and those who are listening online to be reminded just how much this bill will impact you, your neighbors, and our friends across the country. I've had the honor of serving on this committee since May 1994. And since then, I've authored one farm bill and parts of 4 others. I've set through a total of 8 markups, and I've endured sweet victories and some very painful losses. So I know firsthand that the journey we have before us will not be easy, but it will certainly be worthwhile.
I thank the chairman for bringing forth this bill today, and I look forward to getting it across the finish line. And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields back. And I'll recognize Congressman David Scott for five minutes.
Speaker 4
Well, thank you. Thank you, lady. Thank you, Chairman Thompson. First of all, it's absolutely crucial that our committee pass a farm bill that, first, helps our farmers. Our farmers are suffering and also provide stability and ensure food security for our great nation.
However, as written, I believe this bill fails on both. Our administration's disastrous trade policies are causing a farm crisis. Reckless tariffs have resulted in multiple trade wars and a staggering loss of international markets. Buyers have already abandoned our American farmers, and instead, they've turned to competitors like Brazil and Argentina. Unfortunately, this bill does not provide additional economic assistance for our farmers, for our producers who were hurt the most by these tariffs.
And further, the bill continues the majority's attacks on federal nutrition programs like SNAP. Ladies and gentlemen, last year, Republicans cut $187,000,000,000 in funding from SNAP, the single largest cut to a nutrition assistance program in American history. However, instead of returning the $187,000,000 in SNAP cuts past an HR one, this form bill removes positive investments, including in the House 2024 form bill. And at a time when families are facing higher prices at the grocery store. The bill eliminates increased funding for the emergency foodist program and gut snip.
And, lord knows, I'm extremely disappointed that this Farm Bill does not make our history-making 1890s student scholarship program permanent. Ladies and gentlemen, the 1890 land grant colleges and university are an important part of the history of our great nation. Let me tell you, this scholarship fund is an incredible example of what we, Democrats and Republicans, can achieve through bipartisanship. You all were here. And when we created the amendment to make the scholarship program permanent and to increase the funding, and since it was created in 2018, the 1890 scholarships have helped African American students earn degrees and begin their careers in agriculture and food sciences.
It is crucial that we ensure this program goes into the future. It is the greatest example of black members of Congress, white members of Congress, Republican members of Congress, Democrats members of Congress, doing one of the greatest achievements in history. It tells the greatness of our nation. When William decomposed a Sherman tore up the South, he said went to President Lincoln. He said, we got to restore it.
And William Decomse of Sherman and President Lincoln got together, and they established the state colleges. But in the eighteen nineties, separate Bengal came, and everywhere in the South, they had put a white college, they put a black one. That is what we have here. Now I also wanna thank you for this committee. President Trump endorsed it.
And I hope, chairman, you and maybe some of my Republican friends will give me an opportunity to speak with the President. Thank him, but he always talks about the work he's done on this bill. We gotta get it done. Thank you.
Speaker 1
The gentleman's time has expired. Now recognize the other gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Austin Scott, for five minutes.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, I wanna thank you for your work on HR1, which included some historic wins for American farmers. And I wanna highlight a few of those wins. The committee achieved the first meaningful investments of the farm safety net since 2002 in HRI. These investments were long past due and necessary to help producers respond to the increased cost of equipment, fertilizer, and fuel.
Through HR1, we increased reference prices between 10-20%, and we enhanced agricultural risk coverage program, authorized 30,000,000 new base acres, and made a $6,000,000,000 investment in crop insurance. With HR1, we're able to extend a much-needed helping hand to the American farmer. Now here's how this additional language will help. Credit. As we've seen in the last 5 years, higher interest rates have driven up borrowing costs and narrow production margins for producers around the country.
In the credit title, we enhanced financing options for producers through updates to loan limits, expanding access to ensure faster turnaround times. We support beginning, young, and small farmers by streamlining access and cutting red tape. We reauthorize and improve the heirs property relending program based on my colleague from Georgia, Representative Bishop's bill, the heirs act. We create an expanded approval pilot program that streamlines access to capital, which includes provisions from a bill that I authored, HR 7475, that addresses the bridge loan gap that was highlighted during I represent David's in my subcommittee hearing on financing farm operations in July. We have a lot of specialty crop wins.
As you know, specialty crop producers have been a historically underserved group due to challenges in developing a specialty crop safety net. Through the establishment of a specialty crop advisory committee and a specialty crop coordinator, this farm bill will help address the gaps in the safety net and enhance the effectiveness of programs, as well as improve and expand insurance programs for our specialty crop producers. I also want to mention the ready-to-use therapeutic foods. I'd like to mention a letter from the American peanut, dairy, and soy producers thanking the committee for the inclusion of language that advances the use and procurement of American-made ready-to-use therapeutic foods, also known as RUTF. This provision allows us to continue saving the lives of children around the world, while supporting American jobs and American growers.
I've seen firsthand the critical role RUTF plays in addressing global malnutrition, and I am proud to have Manna, one of the leading suppliers of this nutrition, in my district. They are the largest RUTF manufacturer in the United States of America. I wanna talk about the bipartisanship of this bill, specifically titles one, five, and 11. Someone on the other side of the aisle have called this bill partisan. They've said it's full of poison pills.
I wanna set the record straight for the Americans who are watching this. My subcommittee, the subcommittee I'm privileged to chair, the general farm commodities, risk management, and credit subcommittee, works on titles 1, 5, and 11. Title one, commodities, includes language from five bipartisan bills and no partisan bills. Title five, credit, includes language from 8 bipartisan bills. Title 11, crop insurance, includes language from four bipartisan bills.
Now, unlike what some Democrats would have you believe, this bipartisanship continues throughout the rest of the titles. This may go down for people who actually look at the facts as the most bipartisan farm bill ever. And, mister chairman, I'm committed to work with anybody who will work in good faith, as I know you are, to include additional provisions in this bill. I wanna thank you for your leadership, Chairman Thompson. I wanna thank you for the work you did in HR one, and I want you to know that I look forward to working with you to carry this bill the rest of the way across the floor and have it signed into law.
And with that, mister chairman, I yield the remainder of my time.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields back. Now please recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Costa, for five minutes.
Speaker 6
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I wanna associate my comments with the chair and the ranking member. For the families of Lamafa, Baird, and Jacksons, we mourn in their losses and pray for them, and the men and women who are serving in harm's way during this action of war. Let me begin by saying that folks are hurting in farm country. As a third generation farmer, I can tell you every week I go home and I interact with my farm community, and times are tough, and bankruptcies are up.
And, normally, I think most of you, I would hope, know that I'm enthusiastic. I try to be enthusiastic about American agriculture, but I'm not enthusiastic about this markup. I can't help but restate that the damage that's been done, I think, over this last year to our democracy under this administration includes a failed tariff strategy, taking away SNAP, and demolishing agencies dedicated to diplomacy like USAID and other humanitarian efforts, just to name a few. It's unfortunate that we have to be in this room less than a year to debate whether it's right to cut programs to ensure Americans who are food insecure have access to food. It's not right, Mr. Chairman.
We must restore regular order, and think that that's part of America's safety net. Compounding this ill-advised reorganization that is happening with the United States Department of Agriculture, and yet we have not had one single oversight hearing to receive. And I am receiving calls with regards to farm service agency offices that are not fully open or staffed, or even closed as to this writing. The USDA to urge them to make sure that they remain open. This is a vital link, a lifeline for our ag op communities to farm programs.
It's our job today, I think, that we sit here and debate the pros and cons of this bill before us. With the recent Supreme Court ruling on tariffs, Congress must not continue to abdicate its role as a coequal branch of government. It's time that stops. Congress has the power of the purse, which is why we must restore the SNAP funding that was cut and provide resources not only to our farmers, our ranchers, dairy men and women that desperately are in need. In my district, California's 21st.
It's the number one SNAP district in California, with nearly 30% of the households participating in an interesting dichotomy and incredible agricultural production, but a lot of people who are food insecure. And, therefore, it's important to note that through the entire state, there are 5,500,000 people in California that rely on SNAP as a part of their safety net. Think about that. As always, I said, food is a national security issue, and we must look at each title as a foundation to Americans' production of food and fiber. It's imperative that we find a path forward to restore the food safety net programs, along with the commodity programs.
And it's the glue that has kept the farm bill together since 1973. Whether we can put that toothpaste back in the tube remains to be seen. It's also America's safety net. In the state of California, our farmers and ranchers, dairy men and women, produce half the nation's fruits and vegetables. 20% of our dairy production in the country comes from California.
80% of the citrus production. Specialty crops clearly is California's leading with over 400 different commodities. We produced last year 61.5 billion dollars at the farm gate, and over 24,000,000,000 was exported. These tariffs are hurting our farmers throughout the country. And I cannot comprehend how it is a plan in this United States Department of Organization Plan that we relocate DC based staff to five regional hubs.
Yet not one of those hubs includes California, the number one agricultural state in the nation, the top ag exporting state in the nation, and the top national recipients of SNAP. Give me a break. Madam secretary of agriculture, come before this committee and justify your reorganization effort, and explain to us what the purpose and what the efficiencies will achieve. I'm at a loss. I would like to submit for the record, mister chairman, two letters that I've submitted to the secretary of agriculture to come and explain what her reorganization plan is all about.
Speaker 6
Let me close by saying that it's imperative that we try to work together. This is my fourth farm bill, and I think we have to try to find a path forward over the next several months, between efforts that are going on in the Senate. And I think some of the landmines that we have in this bill here or some people call poison pills, hopefully, will be worked out. It's my intent to continue to try to work on a bipartisan effort so that we can sustain the agriculture economy in America, which is food is a national security issue. And I yield back the balance of my time.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
And gentlemen, time has expired. Now recognize General McMartons, Mr. Crawford, for five minutes.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the sake of time, I've uploaded my opening statement to your YouTube page. I'm gonna encourage my colleagues to go and look at it. It's awesome. And I support the bill, and encourage my colleagues to do the same.
Yield back. Okay.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields back, and I'll be sure to check that out. Now please recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. McGovern, for five minutes.
Speaker 8
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I wanna speak directly to the Maha movement, to the millions of Americans who voted to make America healthy again. I'm a Democrat. I know we don't agree on everything, but I think we share some common ground, because I share your outrage. I think it is wrong that ultra-processed junk is cheaper than fresh food, and I'm sick and tired of big ag profiting off pesticides while small family farms get squeezed out of business.
I'm disgusted by corporations pumping toxins into our air and water. Chronic disease and cancer are skyrocketing, while our government cheers them on. And I believe the direction this farm bill is going, the direction this country is going under Republican leadership, is the betrayal of MANA. I can point to example after example. PFAS, toxic forever chemicals.
They're linked to endocrine disruption, decreased fertility, and lower sperm counts. I've been working on eliminating PFAS for years after my constituent got cancer from PFAS in his firefighting gear. Moms and influencers thankfully helped propel PFAS into public debate. And instead of siding with Maha, what did this administration do? They delayed setting limits for PFAS in the drinking water.
Who knows why? Maybe ask the chemical companies. A lot of people don't know this, but a lot of pesticides have PFAS in them. How about glyphosate? For years, many of us have been sounding the alarm.
It's another toxic chemical sprayed on our food. It's the main ingredient in Roundup. There are dozens of class action lawsuits because we now know that for decades, chemical companies hid the fact that Roundup causes cancer. Again, many in Maha have rightly spoken out. So can a single Republican on this committee tell me why Donald Trump issued an executive order to expand the production of glyphosate?
And now, big surprise, we have a firm bill that doubles down. This bill grants corporate immunity to the chemical companies. Look it up. Title 10, section 10205. Section 10206 goes on to prevent localities from regulating pesticides.
Section 10207 allows more toxic chemicals to be dumped into our water. Section after section of the spill, one giveaway after another to the pesticide companies. What lobbyist asked for this? Was that drafted in the Monsanto boardroom or something? Follow the money.
Follow the money. Big ag and chemical companies are two sides of the same coin, all part of the same corrupt machine. One makes the chemicals, the other profits from driving family farms out of business. Both sides buy off politicians, and both sides profit when the rules are rigged against the little guys. And that's exactly what this farm bill does.
The chemical giveaways are tied at the hip to a larger, more structural problem with this farm bill. It does nothing to improve our food system. Now let's move on to nutrition, because I have limited time here. Seniors who take pills on an empty stomach end up in the emergency room. Working people who can't afford to buy healthy food end up with chronic diseases.
Kids who are hungry don't learn. So clearly, hunger and health are intricately linked, which is common sense. You can't be healthy if you're hungry. But this farm bill, instead of addressing our hunger crisis in this country, 42,000,000 Americans who can't afford food, this bill makes the crisis worse. Last year, Republicans made the largest cut to nutrition assistance in American history.
Veterans, family with teens, seniors, people aging out of foster care, all kicked off food assistance. In Massachusetts, thousands of people are losing access to food this month because Republicans took their food assistance away in order to give billionaires another tax break. And, by the way, when it comes to students, I've introduced a bill to boost school meal reimbursement rates. That would mean more scratch-cooked meals, more local foods in our cafeterias. Not a single Republican will co-sponsor it.
Your farm bill rewards the same broken system that made America sick in the first place. Your farm bill empowers big ag and enables them to keep dumping toxins in our food. Your farm bill tells local farmers to get big or get out. Your farm bill makes food less healthy and more expensive. In short, your farm bill is a betrayal of Maha.
Now I'm not here to pretend Democrats are perfect in every issue, but when it comes to standing up against big ag and chemical companies, combating hunger, and fighting for healthier food. We are a hell of a lot better on these issues. This farm bill is corporate control with a wellness label slapped on top. And to be blunt, it sucks. And the pesticide loopholes and the cuts and nutrition assistance, and oppose this Republican Farm Bill.
It's a blank check to those who wanna protect the broken status quo, and none of us should be complicit. Gentleman's time is expired.
Speaker 1
Now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Rausser, for five minutes.
Speaker 9
Thank you, mister chairman, and I wanna thank you for your leadership. I want to thank the staff for all their work. There's no question agriculture is suffering some dire times. No question about that whatsoever. And this bill holistically addresses every issue you could possibly address to rectify that situation, other than the issues outside the jurisdiction of the committee.
And so I commend you for that. And, you know, some of our friends on the other side of the aisle, at least based on what I've heard so far, none of my growers would agree with all that. And, in fact, I've got a letter here from the North Carolina Farm Bureau, strongly supporting passage of this farm bill that I'd like to include for the record. And with that,
Speaker 1
I'll yield back. Gentleman yields back. Now I recognize a general lady, Doctor Adams, from North Carolina for five minutes.
Speaker 10
Chairman. And before I begin my comments, I do want to express my concern for and sympathy to all of our members and those who have suffered. And I thank those of you who have expressed concern regarding the loss of my system just returning from New Jersey, but thank you very much. Mister chairman, I've been talking with farmers and families across my district, and what I'm hearing is concerning. Farmers are facing a lot of uncertainty.
Markets are swinging up and down. The cost of fertilizer, fuel, and equipment keeps rising. Trade policies have disrupted export markets they spent years building. Economists warn that costs are climbing. Crop prices are weak, and more farms are going bankrupt, which is not exactly the golden age that was promised.
The numbers are stark. Farm bankruptcies rose 46% in 2024. USDA says 15,000 farms were lost last year alone. In Pennsylvania, there were 10 farm bankruptcies in 2023, up from just two in 2024. Those aren't just numbers.
They're family farms shutting down, generations of hard work coming to an end, and communities losing part of their foundation. As US farmers struggle with shrinking export markets. Competitors like Brazil and Argentina have strengthened their foothold, aided by US bailout initiatives. Market share built over decades has been lost, and this bill does nothing to help farmers win it back. Right now, farmers are sitting across the table from their bankers, trying to secure loans for the next planning season.
They're making big decisions in an unstable environment. The administration's bailout is not enough, and repeated bailouts are a sign that the underlying system is broken. To make it even more unstable, after the Supreme Court struck down Trump's tariffs last month, he immediately said he was going to impose a 10% global tariff, then said it would be 15%. And then there was the $175,000,000,000 question unanswered. What's going to happen to the money?
The government has already collected and import taxes are now declared unlawful. Farm groups have been clear. They need steady, reliable support, and this bill doesn't provide it. And it's just not farmers who are struggling. Families fill it every time they go to the grocery store.
In my district, the average monthly grocery bill is now over $1,000. The cost of fruits and vegetables alone has gone up more than 5%. Wages aren't keeping up, and more families are falling behind. Yet this bill doesn't offer meaningful help to working families, to seniors, to veterans, or people with disabilities trying to afford basic food. But we shouldn't be surprised.
Over the summer, Republicans cut snap by $187,000,000,000 and shifted more of the costs onto states and counties that are already stretched thin. Governors and state lawmakers, Democrats and Republicans, are scrambling to figure out how to keep people fed. After 20 years in the General Assembly of North Carolina, I can tell you that states cannot absorb costs like this without cutting other services. And even though this committee heard from governors and expert witnesses about this issue, this bill does nothing to undo those cuts or delay the cost shifts. However, this bill does call for a jail study on rising SNAP administrative costs.
But when Republicans require states to pay 25% more of those costs, the reason is obvious. States don't need another study. They need resources, and these issues are connected. Nutrition programs aren't just for farmers, for families. They also support farmers.
And whether a person uses SNAP to buy food at the local store or farmers' markets, or USDA purchases commodities through TFAP, that money moves through the supply chain. It supports the truck driver, the producer, the grocer, and the farmer. Farmers need customers. Families need food. These programs link the two.
In North Carolina alone, more than 9,000 individuals and families filed for bankruptcy last year. That's an 11.4% increase. When both farm bankruptcies and family bankruptcies are rising, that's a clear warning sign. Something isn't working. And beyond what this bill fails to do, we should look at what it includes.
It strips states of their right to regulate agriculture by overturning voter-approved animal protection measures, even though the Supreme Court already ruled on this issue. It gives broad liability protections to large pesticide companies, limiting the ability of farming and families and even states to seek accountability. It's not a strong forward-looking farm bill that farmers and families deserve, and it does not meet the seriousness.
Speaker 1
Time is because now recognize the gentleman from Mississippi, Mister Kelly, for five minutes.
Speaker 11
Thank you, mister chairman, for your leadership, for bringing this farm bill to markup. I also wanna send out my prayers and thoughts to Doug Limalfa, who'll tell me, hello, admiral, every time he sees me anymore. Jim Baird and his wife, and Jonathan Jackson and his beloved father. This legislation reflects what matters most to Mississippi's farmers, foresters, and rural communities. We are blessed with remarkable producers in our state, men and women who work long hours to feed, fuel, and clothe this nation despite serious economic pressures.
Over the past several years, they have faced one of the toughest farm economies in decades, high input costs, and high interest rates that have squeezed margins across the board. Mister chairman, farm or food security is national security. A strong farm bill is about more than farm policy. It is about the future of rural America. In Mississippi, agriculture and forestry are economic engines.
They support small businesses, sustain local communities, and provide jobs across the entire state. When farmers hurt, rural towns hurt. When agriculture is strong, rural America is strong. Title one is foundational. I appreciate that the reference prices were increased in the big Build Back Better bill.
That was an important step forward. This bill builds on that progress and strengthens the farm safety net to better reflect today's economic realities. I am proud this bill includes H.R. 5468, the Community College Agriculture Advancement Act. This legislation ensures that community colleges can successfully compete for federal grants to carry out agricultural education, research, and outreach activities. It helps to modernize equipment and infrastructure, supports professional development for faculty, and encourages collaboration with land grant universities and other institutions.
It also promotes apprenticeships and work-based learning opportunities so students can gain hands-on experience and move directly into the workforce. In rural states like Mississippi, community colleges are often the front door to opportunity, and this bill strengthens that pathway. It also includes HR 3476, the forest conver... Conservation easement program act, legislation authored to create a dedicated tool to keep working forests as forests while remaining privately owned and productive, a major priority for forestry states like Mississippi. Finally, I wanna recognize the leadership of President Trump and USDA Secretary Brook Rollins.
Their commitment to rule America and to restoring stability in the farm economy matters. I appreciate the chairman's leadership, and I proudly support this farm bill. Mister chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from Connecticut, Missus Hayes, for five minutes.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd first like to say I plan to use every second of my time. My constituents have been waiting years for a farm bill. They've been waiting for us to get this done, it is literally our job. So trying to out early, in the interest of time, is a disservice to the people who have been waiting for us to get this done.
Today, we are considering a farm bill that fails to address the needs of farmers and families across the country. The farm coalition was one that worked strengthening our farmers and feeding hungry people. This committee created and reformed the supplemental nutrition assistance program to be the most effective anti hunger program in the history of this nation, feeding 42,000,000 Americans across the country and lifting millions out of poverty. Unfortunately, last year when Republicans advanced HR 1, the one big beautiful bill, it cut SNAP by $187,000,000,000, and it was a betrayal of the Farm Bill Coalition. But I was not surprised.
From the Fiscal Responsibility Act to the 2024 Farm Bill to the reconciliation bill, it has been a top priority for Republicans on this committee to take food away from hungry families, children, veterans, and everyone in between. The Farm Bill we're going to mark up is unacceptable and does not meet the moment. It is filled with partisan poison pills, like a blanket liability exemption for million-dollar pesticide corporations, rolling back the environmental quality initiatives, pro-incentives programs, and it includes nothing to address the administration's tariffs and trade wars that are deeply impacting our farmers. Additionally, this legislation does not address the $187000000000 in SNAP cuts, which have already seen individuals lose access to benefits. During the government shutdown, many of my colleagues spoke about how their districts were deeply impacted by people not getting their SNAP benefits.
And yet we come back to this committee and introduce a farm bill that does nothing to close those gaps or address what we learned during that time. This bill does not take into account any feedback from the states and the counties who have been sounding the alarm about the cost-shift provisions and the impact on the viability of the program in their states. States will have to make difficult decisions if they want to keep their SNAP programs running, including raising taxes or restricting eligibility. I will be offering a series of amendments to address restoring food security for Americans, the administration cost shift to states, and the lack of crop insurance provisions for small farmers and others, because there's still time to address these things and improve this legislation before we vote it out of committee. I look forward to productive discussions tonight and tomorrow and the next day, and as long as it takes for this markup to conclude.
And I hope that we find some bipartisan agreement that improves this bill before we send it to the House floor. And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
General Lee yells back. Now I recognize General from Nebraska, Mister Bacon for final chairman.
Speaker 13
I too, we're all gonna miss Jim Amalfa, his wisdom, his wit, and his friendship. And I know he's always played a valuable role in this committee. And I'll also offer our condolences to mister Baird and to mister Jackson. I speak in favor of the Farm Bill. I was here in the 115th congress when we passed the last Farm Bill.
The new one is now two years overdue. The last Farm Bill was great, but it's out of date. It needs to be made current again, and this Farm Bill definitely does that. Now in Nebraska, we're the number one of the 50 states for beef production. We're in the top five for pork, corn, soybeans, ethanol, and popcorn.
It's important. I represent Omaha. It's more we've got some ag on the sides of Omaha and particularly Saunders County, but we have tons of agribusiness, and the financial health of our farmers and ranchers directly impact all these agribusinesses in Omaha. So this farm bill is also important to the business community. Some of the highlights in this bill.
It's gonna help out our Nebraska hog producers. It's gonna provide regulatory certainty to various manufacturers. It's gonna transfer Food for Peace to the USDA and return the program to its original attempt of addressing the global hunger crisis through the purchase of US grown commodities. It reduces barriers for beginning farmers trying to gain access to credit, first-generation farmers who wanna get in the door. We're gonna help them get started, and it also incentivizes further research and the adoption of precision agriculture technologies.
Some of my initiatives include helping farmers navigate the FSA loan application process, financially supporting the future farmers of American 4-H students, great organizations, enhancing the cybersecurity of our agricultural supply chains, more effectively tracking foreign farmland purchases, and streamlining the administration of the SNAP program. Am pleased that many of these initiatives have garnered bipartisan backing. I wanna thank both my Republican and Democratic colleagues for their support. I look forward to listening to the debate on these amendments. I look forward to hopefully increasing the bipartisanship with the final bill here.
But let's not be fooled. We gotta get this farm bill passed for our farmers and ranchers. I yield.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yield's back. Now recognize Gentlela from Ohio, Miss Brown, for five minutes.
Speaker 14
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The farm bill is our opportunity to address the real issues facing farmers and families across the country. Mhmm. Yet, this effort feels like we're just going through the motions, not doing the hard, thoughtful work the committee owes to the people we serve. There was no meaningful effort to negotiate and put forth a bipartisan product.
The bill ignores the alarm bells from farmers and families in red and blue states that our nation's most effective anti-hunger program is at risk after the financial rug was pulled out from under them in HR1. And there's a large stark gap between what's in this bill and what producers and growers are experiencing on the ground. The farm economy is under real strain. Net farm income has fallen sharply. Input costs are up.
Export markets have been destroyed, thanks to the current trade war. And bankruptcies reached 15,000 last year, with the crisis hitting the hardest in the Midwest. Don't just take my word for it. A group of 27 trusted former USDA and farm group leaders sent a letter to this committee last month expressing concerns about, and I quote, harmful and compounding effects that administration policies are having on our farmers. Mister chairman, I request unanimous consent to enter the letter into the record.
Speaker 14
Thank you. I share their concerns. Staffing cuts and reorganization at the USDA, continued delay in passing year round E15, cuts to food aid, both international and domestic, persistent labor challenges, lost markets, deteriorating trade relationships. These are the same concerns I hear reflected on the ground, and this bill fails to address any of them. And, of course, we can't talk about the state of the farm economy without talking about tariffs.
For farmers, the Supreme Court's tariff ruling comes after much of the damage has already been done. For months, they've been operating in chaos. Markets they spent years building disappeared almost overnight. And it's just like in 2018, buyers are turning to countries like Argentina and Brazil. That's not theoretical.
That's lost contracts, lost income, and real uncertainty heading into the planting season. Producers, growers, and ranchers don't want handouts. They want stability. They want to know that if they grow it, they can sell it. So when we sit here and talk about what this farm bill should do, it ought to start with that reality.
At the same time, rural communities like those in Southeast Ohio, Northern Pennsylvania, and Central Illinois are being hollowed out by hospital cuts, childcare shortages, and small business closures. This is not spin. This is the lived reality for farmers, rural families, and communities trying to hang on. And this crisis runs from the farm gate to the dinner plate. While farmers struggle to stay afloat, families in Cleveland are paying more and getting less at the grocery store.
Prices continue to climb for the one in 5 households in my district who depend on nutrition assistance. That means impossible choices. We haven't had a hearing in this committee on anything touched by the Farm Bill in nearly 6 months, and the result is a bill that leaves small producers, specialty crop farmers, families, and tribal communities behind. And this bill takes new aim at the very partners helping whole communities stay together. It shifts costs onto charitable food networks like the Gold Star Standard Cleveland Food Bank in my district that already are stretched thin.
It undercuts conservation programs that farmers rely on to manage risk. It short changes research institutions and land grants, including by missing the opportunity to make 1890 scholarships permanent for schools like Ohio's Central State. And it is impossible to divorce what we are considering here today from the cuts that Republicans made in HR one at a time when 47,000,000 Americans are food insecure. This committee chose to crack the Farm Bill Coalition in half and use food assistance as a pay-for. The Farm Bill is supposed to be the foundation of both farm stability and food security.
We should be focused on rebuilding the coalitions that reflect the full system and pushing for durable bipartisan solutions that actually meet the moment. That's how we rebuild trust. That's how we break this cycle of gridlock. And that's how, after years of delay, we deliver a farm bill that actually works for the people it's supposed to serve. Sadly, this bill and this process fall well short of that standard.
And with that, Mister Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mister Boss, for five minutes.
Speaker 15
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the work you've done on the farm bill and the positive changes that this will bring to the ag industry, especially the folks in my district. I'm proud to represent over 10,000 producers in one of the most diverse ag districts in Illinois, which is why I look forward to voting in favor of the 2023 farm bill and the Ag First policies it includes. The 2026 farm bills off the historic investments made in the Working Families Tax Cut Act include 56,000,000,000 into our commodity programs, 6,000,000,000 for crop insurance affordability, 285,000,000 per year for ag trade and market development, and the elimination of the death tax. Our farmers, producers, who produce the food, fuel, and fiber that this nation runs on, they play an estimated role in our commodities, and it's only right that we support them and have their backs at this time, at the times they need it.
That's why this farm bill exists. It isn't for good times, but it is for the bad. My district is home to staples like corn, soybeans, but also livestock, dairy, specialty crops like peaches, apples, and grapes. We have rice. We also have just recently started growing cotton since the night last time we did that was since nineteen twenties.
While these commodities are very different, they share many of the same goals, including access to credit. Today, producers still face barriers when seeking access to USDA loans, especially family operated operations, family operations where multiple siblings farm under a single entity. This often leads to unnecessary barriers when applying for USDA loans. I was happy to see the introduction of my bill, the USDA Loan Modernization Act, to address this issue and provide increased access to credit for farming families. Now I'm also pleased that the bill, the Solar Act, has been included in the farm bill because we've got to do what we can to allow farmers, our landowners, to do whatever they need to do with their own property, but not subsidize them twice.
One, whenever they put in a solar bill and a solar plant, but also by taking prime farmland out of production. We've got to get this problem straightened out. Large solar panel tracks are eating up acre after acre of prime farmland in rural America, and my constituents have had enough. We need to establish guidelines for solar panels protecting and ensuring that local communities have a say in the approval process. Thank you, mister chairman, for working with me on this important issue and including a legislative fix in the Farm Bill.
Another one of my priorities is to ensure that our producers are able to not only feed our folks at home, but also around the world. In 2024, Illinois exports were more than 6,000,000,000 worth of corn and soybeans. MAP and FMD play a critical role in moving mipe producers' commodities from their fields to foreign markets. The Farm Bill doubles funding for these trade promotions and makes access to programs. Lastly, I would like to voice my support for finding a legislative fix to proposition 12.
State ballot initiatives should not be able to impose standards for livestock produced across state lines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I look forward to passing the farm bill out of this committee, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields. Now I recognize the gentlelady from Kansas, Miss Davis, for five minutes.
Speaker 16
Thank you, chairman, and thank you to our ranking member for putting this markup together. It's been nearly 8 years since Congress passed the long term farm bill. In that time, the economic reality facing our farmers has changed dramatically. Input costs are up. Markets are unstable.
Interest rates are higher. And Kansas producers are operating in a completely different environment than when the last bill was signed into law. In my home state of Kansas, agriculture is our largest economic driver. From the wheat fields in Western Kansas to cattle operations and other row crops across the state, agriculture powers our rural communities, supports small businesses, and feeds families across the country and across the world. Kansas has a long history of agricultural leadership in Congress because we understand that when agriculture is strong, our entire economy is strong.
That's why it's deeply frustrating that we've seen a delay and a lack of prioritization of this bill. Farmers plan in seasons and years, not in short-term extensions. It's wrong for leadership to keep pushing this off. The folks I talked to back home aren't asking for political games. They're asking for stability.
Right now, what many of them feel instead is pure chaos. When those costs go up for farmers, they go up for families at the grocery store, too. Just last year, nearly 700 farms in Kansas closed. Farm bankruptcy rates were up 46% over the previous year. If that's not a warning sign that federal policies are failing our neighbors, I don't know what is.
Before our last markup, former Republican Senator Pat Roberts joined me for a farm bill discussion. And he said, and I quote, we know that the most important thing when you get down to it is to get a bill passed to provide farmers with certainty and predictability. That hasn't changed. He also warned that too many lawmakers were favoring ideology and partisanship over getting a bill done that actually benefits the agricultural professionals that we're supposed to be serving. Last year's budget law upended the traditional Farm Bill Coalition by cutting nearly $200000000000 from the nutrition title.
These historic cuts to the nutrition title jeopardize the path forward for this bill and for future farm bills. The nutrition title, the nutrition titles bipartisan foundation, began with a senior Republican from my state, Senator Bob Dole. He put it plainly by saying, agriculture is neither democratic nor republican. Farm legislation is usually developed on a bipartisan basis. He was right then, and he's right now.
You cannot decimate a court title of the farm bill and expect bipartisan support to continue to hold. Just like you would not be able to cut crop insurance and expect bipartisan support to continue to hold, you cannot cut things like crop insurance and expect producers to feel secure. The coalition only works if everyone at the table is actually respected. I wanna be clear. There are constructive provisions in this bill, but there are also sections that need improvement, key gaps that can and should be addressed.
Over the next few days, I'm going to work in good faith to make those adjustments. My goal is simple, to pass a bipartisan bill out of this committee that works for all producers, from family farms to large operations, row crops, livestock, commodity, and specialty crops. And that's gonna maintain the coalition that made the farm bill durable for decades. After years of delay, farmers and ranchers need certainty and predictability. Rural communities need stability.
Families need to be able to afford groceries. That only happens when we do the hard work of building a bipartisan bill. The Farm Bill has not and should not be a partisan exercise. As a Midwesterner and a Kansan, I'm gonna keep pushing to uphold our state's tradition of pragmatic, bipartisan agricultural leadership because our producers, our communities, and our country are counting on us to get this right. Thank you.
I yield back.
Speaker 1
General Lee yields back. Now I recognize the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Mann, for five minutes.
Speaker 17
Well, thank you, Chairman Thompson, for holding today's markup and for leadership throughout this process. This bill is a result of countless farmer listening sessions that you and others, all of us, conducted all over the country, including in our state of Kansas, and I appreciate all of your work on that. Agriculture is the backbone of the Big 1st District of Kansas and of our country. The Big 1st is home to over 60,000 farms and ranches, and each one represents a family business navigating real economic pressures. These farmers and ranchers do not ask for handouts.
They ask for policy that reflects the realities they face every day on the ground, and regulatory certainty so they can continue to work to feed, fuel, and clothe the world. The farm economy is in a difficult place. Over the last five years, input costs have drastically increased, interest rates have made borrowing more expensive, and Mother Nature has proven once again to be an unreliable business partner. Despite this, our ag producers answer their calling each day to feed, fuel, and clothe the world, and they deserve a Congress that answers that call alongside them. Last summer, we secured historic agriculture investments in the working family tax cuts.
That legislation strengthened the farm safety net, updated reference prices, and bolstered crop insurance so producers could better manage risk in an increasingly volatile world. Today, we build on that foundation. The Farm, Food, and National Security Act focuses on the next set of challenges facing rural America. This bill expands access to credit, giving producers more options to invest for the future, including provisions from the Investing in Rural America Act legislation I cosponsor to ensure capital flows to the communities that need it most. It strengthens rural development programs, lowers energy costs, promotes innovation in biofuels, supports broadband expansion, protects rural health care access, and invests in water infrastructure.
When rural America thrives, the rest of the country does as well. And this legislation provides the support our communities have asked for and needed for years. I'm also proud that this Farm Bill will build upon legislation introduced and work done by the Trump administration to permanently move the Food for Peace program to the USDA, its rightful home, to ensure it prioritizes American grown commodities and remains focused on its original intent. Food for Peace was born in Kansas from generous farmers who believe they could use their excess crops for the global good. For decades, it has shipped American-grown commodities to a hungry world while strengthening our national security and supporting producers right here at home.
This legislation provides that support needed for programs like Food for Peace and McGovern-Dole to deliver lifesaving aid, all while increasing accountability for taxpayer dollars and supporting American farmers. This legislation will reduce trade barriers and open new markets for Kansas producers who rely on trade relationships to efficiently sell their commodities to willing buyers. It advances precision agriculture, supports research at our land grant universities, and promotes voluntary, locally led conservation programs like EQIP and CRP without adding unnecessary and needless regulations. President Eisenhower, who hailed from the Big Fort District of Kansas, used to say, quote, farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you're a thousand miles from a cornfield. Too often, federal policy is written far from the realities of rural America by bureaucrats with little knowledge of our farmers' day-to-day lives.
This committee has vowed to do the opposite. We have listened to producers on the ground, taken their feedback seriously, and provided certainty without getting in their way. That is what this farm bill is all about. The world does not wait for Congress. Our global competitors are not slowing down.
Rural communities are counting on us. Today, we have the opportunity to strengthen national security, invest in rural America, and ensure the next generation of farmers and ranchers can continue to feed, fuel, and clothe the world. It is time to take that opportunity and make it a reality. I've been on the floor of the House of Representatives 34 times as part of my Farm Bill Impact series to argue for a fiscally conservative five year Farm Bill that delivers certainty without over expanding the scope of government. I'm proud to see that priority becoming a reality.
I'll be voting for the Farm Food and Nutrition Security Act of 2026, and I look forward to advancing this legislation for the farmers, ranchers, and rural communities in Kansas and that we all represent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields. Now please recognize the gentleman from Oregon, Congresswoman Salinas, for five minutes.
Speaker 18
Thank you, Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Craig. The people of Oregon's 6th District sent me here to represent their interests and needs. And since I first arrived at congress in 2023, I've consistently advocated for the economic and safety net priorities of Oregonians. Despite some positive provisions for Oregonians in this farm bill reauthorization, when taken as a whole, this bill is unacceptable. It fails to meet the needs of Oregonians and should in no way be considered a bipartisan compromise.
My district is home to a wealth of agricultural diversity, from Christmas trees to hazelnuts, and, of course, our world-famous Willamette Valley wine grapes. I have fought to ensure all our producers' needs, including specialty crop growers, are prioritized in the farm bill. I'm pleased to see that Texas establishes a specialty crop advisory committee and creates a framework for future specialty crop disaster assistance. As ranking member of the forestry subcommittee and representing a state that boasts 30,000,000 acres of some of the world's most productive forests, I've made it my goal to invest in our wildland firefighting workforce, timber industry, and forest recreation, research, and management priorities. As such, I'm grateful that the chairman's proposal includes parts of my bill, the Timber Innovation for Building Rural Communities Act, which would reduce the match requirement for the Wood Innovation Grant Program by nearly half, and establish a platform for measuring and tracking carbon emissions, sequestration, and storage of wood products.
Even with some of these welcome additions to the farm bill, they do not make up for all the ways this bill is lacking. To start, my home state of Oregon is nearly 50% forested. With that comes the reality of forest fires, which are increasingly frequent and more devastating. Despite this reality, the farm bill would actually turn back the clock on the best practice wildfire mitigation strategies by requiring the Forest Service to suppress fires within twenty-four hours under what is known as the 10 AM policy. This practice is so outdated that our own government Forest Service Web site calls the 10 AM policy, in quotes, a strategy of the past that unfortunately helped create the wildfire crisis of today.
Instead of bolstering our wildland firefighting workforce through this farm bill, we are making the job of firefighters more difficult through outdated and rejected fire science policy. On top of endangering our firefighters with illogical mandates, this administration has also cut 4,000 workers from the Forest Service and has gone as far as greenlighting detentions on firefighters by ICE. This past August, my constituent who is here legally on a U visa was arrested at a fire camp during an active fire on the Olympic Peninsula. Tell me what message this sends to our firefighters about how much we value the life-saving work they do on our behalf. Across the board, families and farmers are struggling to make ends meet, and this bill does little to nothing to make up for the harm caused to farmers from the Trump administration's hostile trade policies and the harm caused to families when this committee slashed nearly $200,000,000,000 from SNAP last year.
I recognize this farm bill is repurposing dollars from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to fund market access and foreign market development programs, but the impact of that funding is blunted by the tariffs that have led to nearly $44,000,000,000 in agricultural trade deficit, and skyrocketing input costs. Let's not forget that the funding for these programs was off the backs of millions of people who would be kicked off their SNAP benefits at a time when grocery prices are only skyrocketing. In fact, these cuts to SNAP will cause nearly 800,000 Oregonians to lose their food benefits. Of these Oregonians, one in four are children, and one in eight is seniors. In less than a year, every state will also be required to pick up double the cost of administering the SNAP program.
In Oregon, that's $80,000,000 the state is expected to absorb. As ranking member of the horticulture subcommittee, I have consistently said that specialty crops have been left behind for too long. The majority's farm bill does not do nearly enough for the specialty crop growers in my district. There's no new money for disaster assistance, no enhancements to specialty crop insurance, and nothing to address the headwinds producers are facing from rising input costs and labor difficulties. This bill only perpetuates the status quo, leaving specialty crops behind.
And I'm not finished. This bill comes up short in so many other ways. It does not include direct disaster relief for farm workers who keep our food systems running. It does not include summer food delivery for hungry children in rural communities. It does not include my bipartisan and bicameral domestic Organic Investment Act that would give organic producers tools to increase capacity, modernize their operations, and expand their businesses.
I could go on. My colleagues and I, the minority, understand that compromises must be made to get a Farm Bill passed. None of us expect to get everything on our wish list. At the very least, we expect good faith engagement and a good faith proposal that matches our commitment to bipartisanship. Instead, we were locked out of this process and only given five business days to review the text, consult stakeholders, and prepare for this one-sided hearing.
The only reason we ended up with more time to review the bill was because of a blizzard, not bipartisanship. Farmers deserve better. Families deserve better. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
General lady yields back. Now I recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Feenstra, for five minutes.
Speaker 19
Thank you so much, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Craig, and the committee staff for all their hard work in bringing this bill before us today. I come from Iowa, where agriculture is the backbone of our economy. I'm proud to represent one of the most productive agricultural states in America, the state that leads the nation in production of pork, eggs, corn, soybeans, and biofuels. Farmers and ranchers across our country feed our families, power our industries, and anchor our communities. Since I came to Congress, I have heard one thing loud and clear.
Farmers need Washington now more than ever to do its job and pass a strong farm bill that is workable. As I stand here today, farm country is in a lot of challenges and under a lot of pressure. Producers are dealing with volatile markets, tightening margins, and growing uncertainty. This bill before us builds upon the historic work this committee has done during the Working Families Tax Cut and delivers farmers the tools they need to meet these challenges. This bill includes more than 15 bills that I have sponsored or co-led as a result of the years of listening to the farmers, rural communities, and working families in Iowa.
To highlight just a few of these bills, this farm bill includes farmland act to keep China away from our farmland. Iowa farmland belongs to the Iowa farmer. It includes a SAFE Act to ensure we strengthen our response to animal disease outbreaks while protecting our agricultural markets. It includes the Fridge Act to open new export markets for our producers abroad, and it also includes Prop 12, making sure that we preempt states like California from hurting our hog producers. Today, this legislation expands investments in rural communities, restores regulatory certainty, and promotes agricultural research and innovation.
It also gives American farmers and rural communities the tools they need to feed America and the rest of the world. I didn't come to Congress to leave problems for the next generation. Our producers can't afford more delay. They need Congress to act now. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill and deliver certainty, investment, and opportunity that American agriculture deserves.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields back. Now please recognize for five minutes the gentleman, lady from Hawaii, Miss Takuta.
Speaker 20
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mister Chair, we always have a choice. And today, the choice before this committee is whether we uphold the legacy of the farm bill or weaken it. For generations, Congress understood something fundamental. Feeding families and supporting farmers are not competing priorities.
They are inseparable. The farm bill has endured because lawmakers on both sides of this aisle recognize that agriculture policy and nutrition policy rise and fall together. Farmers need customers, families need food, and when we invest in both, America is stronger. That is the tradition we inherited, and it is the standard this bill must meet. As the only member of Hawaii's congressional delegation serving on one of Congress' agricultural committees, I come to this markup, carrying the voices of communities where the connection between agriculture and hunger is impossible to ignore.
In the weeks leading up to today, I traveled across every county in Hawaii, holding farm bill listening sessions. I met with farmers facing skyrocketing costs and shrinking margins. Ranchers worried about shipping expenses and market instability. Indigenous producers working to sustain traditional crops, central to our culture and food security. Their message to me was clear.
Farmers are struggling to stay afloat. Ranchers are thinking about selling off their cattle and closing their businesses. Families are struggling to afford groceries, and hunger is growing, whether Washington chooses to acknowledge it or not. At the same time, unnecessary tariffs imposed by this administration have added pressure on both ends of the food system. Farmers are paying more for equipment, feed, and supplies, while families are paying more at the checkout line.
These policies squeeze producers and consumers alike, making an already difficult moment worse. This is the reality in which this farm bill is being written. So let's be honest about what this bill does and what it also fails to do. Completely disregarding egregious cuts to SNAP does not mean hunger has suddenly disappeared. Eliminating food insecurity statistics does not mean families are suddenly food secure.
Ignoring the problem does not solve it. It simply leaves struggling Americans hungry in the shadows. Nutrition programs are not an add-on to farm policy. They are part of its economic foundation. SNAP supports farmers, grocers, truckers, and rural communities nationwide.
When families can afford food, farmers have stable markets. Weakening nutrition programs weakens agriculture itself. And process matters too. Taking pieces of democratic priorities, placing them into a draft bill, and calling it bipartisan without meaningful engagement with our ranking member does not make this legislation bipartisan. Bipartisanship is not selective inclusion.
It is genuine negotiation and shared decision-making. That has not happened here. Now there are provisions in this mark that I fought for and that I support. The tropical plant health initiative provides long-overdue recognition for crops vital to Hawaii and other tropical regions. Reauthorizing native Hawaiian and Alaska native-serving institution grants strengthens indigenous producers and agriculture education.
Expanding rural hospital technical assistance recognizes that food security and community health go hand in hand. These provisions matter, but they cannot outweigh the larger failures before us. This draft walks back progress towards fairness in the Thrifty Food Plan for my state, Hawaii. It scales back food security for microgrants. It weakens tools that allow noncontiguous states to purchase local food, and it fails to meaningfully address the disproportionate cost faced by farmers separated from markets by thousands of miles of ocean.
Once again, noncontiguous states and territories are treated as an afterthought. Hawaii is not an afterthought. Our farmers are not expendable, and our families should never be collateral damage. The Farm Bill has always represented a promise, that America will support those who grow our food and those who need help putting it on the table. That promise is why the bill has historically earned broad, bipartisan support.
But the legislation before us today fails to meet this moment. If we want the Farm Bill's legacy to continue, if we want future congresses to view it as the rare opportunity where Americans can come together to solve real problems, then we must do better than this. We must write a bill that confronts hunger honestly, supports farmers meaningfully, and reflects the full partnership that has defined this committee at its best. Because preserving the tradition of the farm bill does not happen by invoking history. It happens by living up to it.
And today, we are not yet there. Thank you, Mister Chair, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
General Lady yields back. Now recognize the general lady from Illinois, Missus Miller, for five minutes.
Speaker 21
Thank you, mister chairman, for holding this markup on a much-needed farm bill. Our farmers cannot wait any longer. We need to pass a farm bill now, not six months from now, not a year from now. Now. It's long overdue.
The men and women who feed and fuel our nation deserve certainty. They need to know what's ahead in order to properly plan for future crop years. Delays in Washington create real consequences in rural America. As many of you know, I'm a third-generation family farmer in Illinois who understands the daily challenges of maintaining a family farm. Ag issues are personal to me.
And more than that, agriculture is the heartbeat of the communities across my district. To give you perspective, my state is proudly home to America's most hardworking farmers and best fertile farmland. Nearly three quarters of Illinois' land mass is prime ag land that produces 15% of all US soybeans and 13% of US corn. My district alone has two 21,000 farms that comprise over 8,000,000 acres. All of this contributes to 31% of the state's agricultural sales.
Given all of this, I am thankful that we finally have a president who understands the issues facing our farmers. Under the previous administration, our producers were left behind, crushed by overregulation, record inflation, and bureaucrats in this town who have never set foot on a working farm. Standing up for agriculture has been a major priority for President Trump and House Republicans. This committee was able to secure historic wins for our farmers in the working family tax cut by directing billions toward farm safety net programs, including money for disaster assistance programs, trade promotion programs, and agricultural research programs. Yet there is still much to do.
This farm bill fills in the missing pieces by providing over $1,000,000,000 to specialty crop programs, clarifying that California's Prop 12 cannot and will not be imposed on producers outside California. It ensures access to credit for beginning farmers and codifies President Trump's reforms into the national dietary guidelines. This bill will hold Congress to its promise to deliver policies that support agriculture. Now is not the time to play politics with our food supply. Food security is national security, plain and simple.
I encourage my colleagues to stand with America's farmers and get this bill across the finish line. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
General Lady yields back. Now please recognize, gentlelady from Illinois, Miss Binsinski, for five minutes.
Speaker 22
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mister chairman, I want to be very clear at the outset of this markup. This conversation is bigger than the bill text in front of us today. It's about whether we are serious about meeting the moment for American agriculture and rural communities, or whether we are simply checking a political box. Midwestern farmers are the best in the world at what they do.
They feed, fuel, and power this country every single day. But right now, even the best are struggling because policy hasn't kept up with reality. Input costs continue to soar, markets are tight, and farmers across the Midwest are saying the same thing. They don't want ad-hoc assistance. They want to take pride in their work and earn a living from what they grow.
And this farm bill doesn't get them there. That is the heart of this issue. Farmers in my district aren't asking for handouts. They're asking for functioning markets. They're asking for fairness and input costs.
They're asking for risk management tools that reflect what they're actually planting. They're asking for conservation programs for producers that protect the land for the next generation. And they're asking for research and innovation that keeps America competitive. This bill does not rise to the challenge. Instead of building a forward-looking bipartisan, truly bipartisan farm bill in 2023 when we had the opportunity to do it the right way, we are now debating what feels like the leftovers.
After so much was jammed into the big, ugly bill, we are left with a narrow proposal that fails to confront the real pressures facing farmers and families. It does not meet the moment, and it reflects a broader pattern. This bill is a perfect example of how this majority in this Congress works. It ruptured the historic Farm Bill Coalition by decimating SNAP, and now that they've broken it, they're not even willing to acknowledge it needs to be fixed, and negotiate with Democrats to find a viable path forward. For decades, the strength of the Farm Bill has been this coalition.
Farmers and families, rural and urban, production, agriculture, and nutrition policy working together. That coalition wasn't an accident. It was a recognition that agriculture policy and food policy are deeply connected. When you break that coalition for partisan gain, you weaken the entire bill. What Republicans broke, they don't even have the courage to fix.
And we've seen this partisan divide play out in real time. Nationwide, year-round E15 is a perfect example of this. We walked right up to the finish line with bipartisan support, with a common sense solution that would expand markets, lower fuel costs, and strengthen rural economies. Instead of getting it done, leadership chose to punt. That's not governing.
That's not avoiding hard choices. Meanwhile, farmers are still dealing with fertilizer price volatility. They're still dealing with seed and chemical costs that are far higher than they were just a few years ago. They're still facing unpredictable export markets, and rural communities are still waiting for meaningful investment. This bill is a vanity project.
What should have been a bipartisan bill in 2023 is now an underperforming partisan bill in 2026, so that Republicans can say they worked on a farm bill without seriously grappling with whether it actually solves the problems in front.
Speaker 22
I believe very deeply in the Farm Bill. I believe in what it represents: stability, partnership, and a long-term commitment to rural America. But that means we have to be honest when we're falling short. While this farm bill misses the mark on helping our communities, we still have a chance to get it right. If this community, this committee, is serious, truly serious about delivering for farmers, rural communities, and families, then now is the time to roll up our sleeves and fix these glaring issues.
That means negotiating. That means listening. That means putting politics aside, and building something durable. The farmers in my district don't want soundbites. They don't want performative votes.
They want a policy that works, and they deserve nothing less. Thank you, mister chairman, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
General lady chair yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Fensett, for five minutes.
Speaker 23
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I first wanna thank you and your staff for the leadership in creating and crafting this strong bipartisan farm bill that is written by farmers and for farmers, by rural communities, and for rural communities, not by DC for DC. And it builds upon our accomplishments in HR one. As a fourth generation farmer raising the fifth generation, I know firsthand that the farm economy and farmers across Southern Minnesota have faced compounding challenges over the past several years, including decreased commodity prices, bad trade deals or no trade deals, increased input costs, and trade disruptions. The agriculture title of the working families tax cut made the most significant investment in the farm safety net since the 2002 farm bill.
Boosted conservation funding, doubled funding for trade and market access programs, made crop insurance farmers' number one risk management tool more affordable. The legislation before us today builds upon those successes, and it reflects the bipartisan priorities of farmers in Southern Minnesota and across the country. I was pleased to see the bill includes several pieces of legislation I introduced to ensure farmers and rural communities have access to the credit necessary to succeed, including the PACE Act, which I introduced with ranking member Craig, to modernize FSA loan limits and ensure farmers, especially beginning farmers, have access to the financing they need to maintain and improve their operations. Rural communities across Southern Minnesota rely on partnerships between the Farm Credit System and local lenders to build and improve essential facilities like rural hospitals. The Investing in Rural America Act legislation I worked on with Congressman Davis was included in this bill and will ensure rural America has access to the capital it needs to remain the best places to live, work, and play for generations to come.
Moreover, I was honored to work with congressman Gray to introduce the USDA Express Loan Act, legislation that will cut red tape and enable timelier, more efficient credit approval and delivery. I commend the chairman for his focus on the importance of food and farm security to our national security throughout this bill. This bill also doubles funding for MAP and FMD, critical tools for expanding international markets for American agriculture. In Southern Minnesota, in Minnesota, with over 3,000 pig farms, our producers use the best animal care standards in the world. If not addressed, California's Prop 12 will continue to cause significant harm to small and medium-sized producers, and it will increase market concentration.
Our legislation will protect the producers I represent from other states' use of political science to mandate wrong-headed production standards. I look forward to working with members of the minority party who are focused on passing a bipartisan farm bill because it's the right thing to do for farmers in rural America, not focused on running for a higher political office and job promotion. As we begin this process, let me be clear. This legislation delivers for farmers and rural communities in the state of Minnesota. With me today, I have letters and statements of support from farmer-led organizations from across Minnesota, including the Minnesota Farm Bureau, the corn growers, Minnesota soybean growers, pork producers, turkey growers, cattlemen, and the Midwest Dairy Coalition.
I even have a letter of support from the Midwest Council on Agriculture, led by the Democrat, former Ag Chair Colin Peterson. Every American is affected by the Farm Bill, and this legislation responsibly addresses their needs across all 12 titles. I look forward to the markup before us today, and I encourage my colleagues to find it in themselves to rip the D and the R off our sweaters and stand shoulder to shoulder to bring this bipartisan product across the finish line for farm country and every American across this country. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields back. Now please recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mister Sorensen, for five minutes.
Speaker 24
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 649. The majority had 649 days to invite us to the table, to work together, to effectively respond to a farm economy that no longer resembles the one we had the last time this bill was before us. And I'm thankful that I've always had farmers and ag stakeholders by my side. In 2023, they helped me get to a yes because the majority worked with me on the important things that I needed to provide for the people in my district.
But this is different today because farm bankruptcies went up 46% just in the last year alone. Input prices are at levels never seen before, and American farmers are losing billions because of a global trade war. And today, their voices are not being heard by this committee. And no matter what your politics are, the statistics don't lie. Fewer than half of farms today will be profitable this year.
Instead of creating good policy, the administration doubled down on trickle down economics that give tax cuts to the ultra wealthy in the hopes that something will trickle down to Middle America. You may be surprised to learn that the number one driver of the economy in Illinois is not what happens in Cook County. It's what happens in Carroll County, Fulton County, and McDonough County. It's agriculture. It's why I'm so proud to be one of the five members of this committee.
And sitting next to my sister from Downstate Illinois, congresswoman Bedzinski, we have five fighters from Illinois in this committee that we fight for hardworking, humble people who just want an honest and fulfilling life. People like Tom Mueller, a corn and bean farmer from Taylor Ridge who's been farming for more than half a century. He told me that the cost of fertilizer and seed has skyrocketed, but the sale price for his crops has plummeted. Export markets continue to shrink, and access to conservation and research is out of reach. And he fears for farmers like him who will go out of business.
Down the road in Illinois City, Phil Forr. He's also feeling the pinch. His costs aren't just unaffordable at the gas pump and at the grocery store. He's now paying through the roof for nitrogen and phosphorus, and needs policy that will explain the market for what he grows. He's a big supporter, as I am, of year round E15, and he doesn't want a handout.
I listened to my local farmers just today, and they understand that this is not a perfect bill. But I say, why can't it be a perfect bill? I fought for years for better crop insurance and appreciate the expanded loan caps for producers that are in this bill. But why aren't we restoring and expanding domestic markets by providing mandatory funding for local food procurement or allowing year-round E15? Instead of finding solutions here, we're just shoving an incredible burden onto the states to ensure our vulnerable neighbors can eat.
Where's the meaningful direct funding for conservation programs like EQIPP that provide essential services to our farmers. Trump's trade wars destroyed the international markets. Where's the policy that will restore and increase our markets for our farmers? Funding levels in this bill don't even account for inflation. Paired with FSA and NRCS cuts, these programs are going to struggle to succeed.
It's like saying to a farmer that the 2018 Farm Bill has enough funding for what you need here in 2026. It only gives the illusion of certainty, and it certainly will not be enough as this farm bill ages 5 years. Our farmers and agribusiness should not have to accept just the minimum. 64,000 families in my district have to find food through SNAP. The folks at the Save A Lot on West State Street in Rockford tell me that if people lose their SNAP, they may not be able to stay in business.
They're gonna create a food desert in the area. Additionally, our farmers are going to lose 30,000,000,000 in SNAP revenue. Our farmers and our farm towns deserve better. This markup gives us a chance to amend the bill and save farmers from losing their livelihood. Let's include the amendments that will do real good, not a second-rate, lackluster hope that something will trickle down to Middle America or a struggling parent.
We have to provide investments to revive our food systems, restore and strengthen domestic markets, and make agriculture of America the force to be reckoned with around the world. We're so much better than this bill, and I look forward to a great markup, a great debate. And, mister chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields back. Now I'll recognize the gentle lady from Florida, Miss Kammock, for five minutes.
Speaker 25
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am so happy that we are finally here, working on this much needed farm bill. It's been a long time coming. Farmers and producers across the country have been operating in limbo for years, and that spans a lot of different administrations. That uncertainty makes it hard to plan, invest, and, quite frankly, even survive.
The Farm Bill is not just another piece of legislation. It is the backbone of American agriculture, food security, and our rural communities. For Florida, this market comes after years of compounding challenges. Our producers have endured hurricanes, three in my district alone, historic flooding, and most recently, a brutal, historic freeze that hit specialty crops, citrus, and nursery operations particularly hard. These are not one-year losses.
For perennial crops like citrus trees, you lose decades of work overnight, and recovery is not quick. It takes time, flexibility, and a safety net that actually reflects how farming works today. Now tonight, it's early in the night, but I've already heard an incredible amount of blaming being thrown around the room and pointing of fingers at which administration to blame. You know, the farm economy is hurting. But, candidly, our producers don't care who broke it.
They just want it fixed. Decades of overregulation, high input costs, labor issues, broken systems, and natural disasters have made it damn near impossible to produce a crop. That is the reality. Now no bill is perfect, and no bill ever will be perfect. But I am really proud of this farm bill.
And as the only member of Congress representing Florida agriculture in both the House and the Senate, I wanna say that there are some tremendous wins for my home state, the Sunshine State. First, I wanna highlight improvements to the three assistance program. This legislation modernizes TAP to recognize the economic realities. Covering trees and plants are no longer products that are no longer productive after a disaster, not just those that are completely destroyed. This gives producers the flexibility to replant different varieties or to move operations if needed.
And more importantly, it requires USDA to make decisions within 120 days. That kind of accountability, certainty, and flexibility matters, and I dare any member of this committee to challenge that. It also allows for upfront TAP payments, and that's huge. When a hurricane or a freeze hits, growers don't have extra cash sitting around to replant first, and then hope that help comes later. There is a critical cash flow, and there is critical cash flow needs and relief when needed when disaster strikes, especially after freezes and hurricanes.
Secondly, I'm very encouraged by the creation of the specialty crop emergency assistance framework. Specialty crops are high value, high input, and historically underserved by disaster programs designed for row crops. Now, of course, I may be biased because I represent Florida, which is home to over 300 specialty crops. And in the winter months, I must remind everyone, feeds 193,000,000 Americans. This framework, in particular, directs USDA to calculate assistance based on prior-year specialty crop sales and explicitly considers higher input costs and diverse business structures.
That recognition matters. It matters to producers who grow fruits, vegetables, and tree crops, and who have too often been forced into one size fits all disaster programs. Now just as importantly, the bill provides higher payment flexibility for full-time producers. Those who derive at least 75% of their income from farming, ranching, and for many Florida specialty crop producers, this change will make the difference between meaningful recovery or no recovery assistance at all. Third, the continuation of the specialty crop block grants and market news funding gives states the flexibility to respond to producer-driven priorities.
In Florida, these programs support everything from disease risk research to marketing, food safety, and export readiness, and they are a critical tool for keeping our specialty crop sector competitive. I'd also like to highlight the incorporation of key provisions of my bill, the Rural Internet Improvement Act. These provisions will bring rural development and broadband investments, including the reauthorization and expansion of the USDA broadband programs. In rural Florida, connectivity is not a luxury. It is essential for precision agriculture, disaster response, telemedicine, and workforce retention.
These provisions help ensure that rural communities are not left behind. Now I wanna note the importance of stability across the safety net. Provisions that ensure USDA can continue servicing sugar loans during lapses and appropriations provide the certainty that those producers need, regardless of what is happening in Washington. Mister chairman, as I said, no farm bill is perfect, but this bill reflects a real effort to listen to our producers. I encourage my colleagues to support, and with that, I heal back.
Speaker 1
Time has expired. Now recognize the gentleman from New Mexico, mister Vasquez, for five minutes.
Speaker 26
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There's a lot going on in the headlines today, from overseas wars to rising costs. But when you get right to it, I think we can all agree that most of our families are still most worried about the basics, like putting food on the table after a long day of work. And the food on the shelves in our grocery stores doesn't just magically appear. It gets there because of the tireless work of our farmers, farm workers, ranchers, and growers.
Serving on the House Ag Committee is a true honor. It's something.
Speaker 26
Came to Congress, not something that was handed to me, and it comes with great responsibility. It's our duty in Congress to support our farmers and rural America to ensure that the American people don't go hungry and keep our rural economies strong and competitive. But I won't sugarcoat it. Congress has been falling flat in meeting those objectives. We've been kicking the can down the road for 3 years now, and I'm tired of it because at the end of the day, our farmers and ranchers are the ones who have paid the price.
In New Mexico alone, we lost over 200 farms. That's 200 family legacies lost, 200 local employers gone, and 200 reminders to this committee that inaction and instability have irreparable consequences. Many of these farms in my home state might still be open today if our farmers had the certainty and support that they deserve from Congress. And, of course, we've got to address the big elephant in the room. It's shameful that this farm bill does nothing to reverse the $187,000,000,000 cut to SNAP made by the Republican tax law.
One in four New Mexicans rely on SNAP benefits, including many people with disabilities, seniors, veterans, and children. A majority, 62% of them, are folks who work. And SNAP doesn't just help families put food on the table. It supports our local grocers, farmers, and rural economies. Every $1 invested in SNAP generates nearly $2 in local economic activity, supporting everyone from farmers to truck drivers to local grocers.
Cutting SNAP hurts producers and working families. That's why the bill before shouldn't be about partisan politics. It should be about whether we're gonna support our farmers and keep this country fed. As a representative of New Mexico's 2nd District, I have the privilege of representing thousands of chili farmers, onion farmers, dairy producers, cattle growers, tree nut producers, ag supply chain operators, food bank operators, and more. Now, two weeks ago, I met with many of them in my district, members of my New Mexico agricultural advisory group.
And the concerns I heard from them are the concerns that I'll be raising in this room over the coming days. We've got to step up and get the job done for our farmers and the hardworking American people who rely on food assistance. That's gonna take a compromise. It's gonna take listening. It's gonna take open-mindedness from everyone in this room.
Now I'm proud to have worked across the aisle with our chairman, with a ranking member, and many of you to secure critical bipartisan wins for our producers and constituents, and have faith that we can do the same in this farm bill. That's why I filed common sense bipartisan amendments to provide financial support and resources to farmers, ranchers, and producers to create wildlife corridors on their land that benefit both wildlife and agricultural productivity, to stop this administration's effort to prioritize Argentinian beef at the expense of our American cattle growers, to honor our veterans and stop disrespecting their service to our country by rolling back harmful snap red tape for veterans, and granting much needed stability to our rural counties by extending secure rural schools funding for five years. So no county is left wondering how it's going to pay for its critical roads and education services. There is bipartisan support for each of these measures across my district and across the country, and hopefully in this committee. And there's no reason that we can't put politics aside past these common-sense solutions to make life better for our farmers, ranchers, and producers, not to mention everyday folks who are at the grocery store.
Now we can't let perfect be the enemy of the good, and it's our job to use the next few days to improve this bill and make it as strong as possible for America. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to hear each other out, take this process seriously, show up, and remember why we're sitting in this room, to deliver for the people who feed this country and the families who depend on us to get this right. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson, for five minutes.
Speaker 27
It's so often dysfunction, Mr. Chairman, that grabs the headlines in this town. I don't think you, sir, and this committee get enough credit for what we did last Congress, which is to pass a comprehensive farm bill out of this committee on a bipartisan basis. It was a good piece of work. We accomplished so many of those bipartisan priorities last year in the reconciliation package. We strengthened crop insurance.
We made sure that we increased reference prices in Title One programs. Clearly, we're in a totally different input environment than we were 7 years ago. Number three, we addressed conservation programs, particularly working lands conservation. And then we also put into place some much-needed reforms to snap. Now a lot of that was done in reconciliation.
But there were a few policy items that we were not able to get through the rules of the Senate, and so that's what brings us here today, sir. As you well know, we've got a little work to do. And once before us is a solid piece of work. I think every farm bill probably should be judged by whether or not it is pragmatic and whether or not it is bipartisan. And, boy, the numbers just don't lie.
When you look at the marker bills, the bills that we have all introduced, staking out what agricultural policies do we care about for our country, for our district. Those are really the building blocks of these bills. Sometimes the people back home will say, oh my gosh, how could you read a bill that big? The reality is, this is like 180 bills that we've all been working on for two years. Those are the building blocks.
And when you look at those 181 marker bills and you try to figure out, well, were they a Republican priority or a Democrat priority, or were they a bipartisan priority? Here's what the numbers say. I suspect you all know it already, but 149 were bipartisan. 18 were Republican only. 14 were Democrat only.
This is an overwhelmingly pragmatic and bipartisan farm bill that takes care of the business that we were not able to get done last year. I'm looking forward to the debate and to the conversation we're gonna have over the next couple of days, because we all know that our farmers and ranchers and everybody living in rural America, they deserve it. They deserve this work product. There's a lot of things our producers simply can't control, and frankly, we can't control them. No matter how we vote, we don't control the weather.
No matter how we vote, we do not control input costs, and we sure don't control prices. But we can make sure that the hardworking folks of production agriculture have a predictable and consistent policy framework so they can make decisions for the next five years, understanding what the rules of the road are. So, mister chairman, I just wanna thank everybody for showing up, for doing the work, for filing those marker bills that have meant that this bipartisan work product is ready for primetime. It is ready to help rural America. It is ready for us to take action.
With that, sir, I would yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman shields back. Now please recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mister Tanidar, for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 28
Access to food is like getting health care at your doctor's office. It's necessary for a thriving America. But at a time when everyone is struggling with the cost of living, Donald Trump and Republicans took away 187000000000 in food assistance from the American people, making it much harder for the 42000000 people who rely on Snap to keep their American dream alive. These cruel cuts have also damaged the bipartisan coalition that has always been key to getting a Farm Bill passed. Investing in food assistance isn't just the right thing to do.
It also grows the American economy. For every dollar invested in food assistance, nearly $2 in economic activity is created. Additionally, SNAP supports nearly 400,000 jobs in trucking, manufacturing, warehousing, and on farms. Every agricultural group benefits from SNAP, and a strong nutritional title has been the consistent key to getting farm bills passed. But instead of trying to rebuild this coalition, this flawed farm bill doubles down on the big, ugly bill's failures.
It doesn't restore any snap cuts. It doesn't invest in the food banks overwhelmed by those struggling to afford groceries in the Trump economy. It ignores the bipartisan group of governors that asked Republicans to delay the big ugly bill's snap cost shifts because they threatened to destroy the entire program. You can't slash nutrition programs, ignore the tens of millions of Americans struggling to afford food, and call it governing. Despite what my friends across the aisle may say about the legislation, a farm bill that makes no effort to undo the largest cut to food assistance in American history doesn't meet the moment.
A farm bill that does nothing to help farmers being crushed by Trump's reckless tariff strategy doesn't meet the moment. And a bill that provides no emergency assistance to farmers on the brink of losing their farms fails to meet the moment. While Republicans had the opportunity to work together in a bipartisan way and deliver for our farmers and families. They chose loyalty to Trump instead. My district has the fourth-highest SNAP participation rate in the country.
As someone who grew up struggling with food insecurity, frequently unaware of where my next meal would come from, I know the pain recent Republican food assistance policies have caused. It's why I can't look at my hungry constituents, seeing the same pain in their eyes that I once experienced, and in good conscience support this bill. I urge a no vote on this farm bill. Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields back. Now recognize Denver from Tennessee, Mister Rose, for five minutes.
Speaker 29
Thank you, mister, chairman and ranking member Craig for holding this markup. I would like to express strong support for the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026. This bill is about keeping America fed, secure, and strong by standing with the men and women who feed and fuel the country. At a time when input costs are at record highs, commodity prices are at painful lows, and many producers are wondering if they can afford to put a crop in the ground, Congress must act. It is time to provide farmers with the legislative certainty they deserve by passing a long-overdue farm bill.
Since the 2018 farm bill expired in 2023, farmers have been forced to rely on short-term extensions of outdated policies that only deepen the challenges facing the farm economy. Last year, this committee secured major victories for agriculture through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, but our work is far from finished. Without passage of a new farm bill, we risk letting vital programs and policies lapse at a time when producers cannot afford further uncertainty. The Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 builds on the successes of HR 1 by further strengthening the farm safety net, enhancing conservation programs, and supporting critical enhancements to the Agricultural Research and Extension Complex. The Farm, Food, and National Security Act contains a number of bipartisan wins that will strengthen our rural communities by supporting rural hospitals, businesses, water infrastructure, and broadband, restoring regulatory certainty by addressing issues like Proposition 12, implementing science-based policies by promoting agricultural innovation and protecting essential crop inputs, increasing access to capital for new and beginning farmers, and prioritizing American farmers on a global scale by furthering trade expansion and promotion programs.
However, this bill is not just a win for farmers and rural communities. It is a win for all taxpayers. The Farm, Food, and National Security Act eliminates fraud by transferring food for peace to the USDA. Holding the USDA and states accountable for SNAP errors, and taking additional common sense steps to streamline programs and improve financial integrity, all without increasing federal spending. Additionally, this bill promotes policies that will increase long-term affordability, strengthen our food supply, and lower everyday costs for all American families.
By making necessary supply chain improvements, promoting efficient new technologies, and expanding reasonable access to capital, this bill prevents price spikes before they happen to keep everyday essentials more affordable. With resounding industry support, this must-pass legislation delivers improvements that benefit farms, rural communities, and every American family. I urge my colleagues to stand with America's farmers and rural communities to support the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields back. Now please recognize the general lady from Michigan, Miss McDonald Rivett, for five minutes.
Speaker 30
Thank you, mister chairman and ranking member Craig. So every time I'm at a microphone, I tell people proudly that I get to represent the hardworking men and women of Mid-Michigan. And as the great former senator Debbie Stabenow used to say, in Michigan, we make things and we grow things. Our district, my district, invented the middle class, and our communities are fueled by family farms. So at home, one thing unifies all of us.
And, frankly, I think it unifies every member of this committee. We think about the future of our families, our kids, and our country. From the potato farmer in Munger, I'll let you know on my hand where that is later, if you'd like. To the UAW worker in Flint, this economy is not working for us. People are working harder and making less, while costs are rising.
The people in my district need us to pass real solutions to make things better. So I've been really looking forward to this markup all year, because this is the space where we are supposed to be finding real solutions, lowering costs, supporting family farmers, and helping working families put food on the table. In short, I want to get to yes on this. As we begin the conversation tonight, we need to understand the realities on the ground, that families and farmers are at a very real breaking point. Our farmers, as is mentioned multiple times, have not seen an update to the Farm Bill since 2018.
For decades, they have had to grind out just to make men's meet, and this year, policies from this committee have made things worse. Chaotic tariff policies have not only increased the prices of goods our farmers use in the field, but it has also taken away many of their customers. I read a report yesterday that showed farmers across our country have lost 44,000,000,000 dollars last year alone. Let's just sit that for a minute. $44,000,000,000.
Back at home, I see the consequences. I hear a new story nearly every day while touring fields, shopping at the grocery store, or grabbing a cup of coffee with our growers. Farmers are having very real conversations about closing their generational family farms. This is what is happening. I don't think that we can sit idly by and let it happen to the people we represent.
We have a greater responsibility to the people who expect us to show up and work for them. It's not just about the family farmers who need the solutions. It is everyday working families, add hours to their schedules, getting up an hour early, and still struggling to make their bills. In my district, 70% of our jobs pay less than $60,000 a year. 70%.
And with the costs they face from health care to groceries, and especially now gasoline, all of them are up, and it makes it impossible to get by. And I do have to talk about this. Instead of helping, this committee made things worse by cutting $200,000,000,000 from SNAP and food assistance in HR 1. And, yes, as someone who two years ago was an appropriator that helped craft a state budget, I can tell you that our state cannot afford the costs that this committee has forced on it. Strong state economies will buckle under these costs.
Bipartisan governors have asked for relief in the state provisions. I do remember when we did that, I remember asking this very room, what is the percentage of hungry children that we are willing to tolerate? Well, if you wanna come to Mid Michigan, you will meet more than 150,000 people who rely on these benefits for their food, and the cuts in this committee are making things harder. I've seen food bank lines run out of food before they get through the lines of people who showed up asking for help. We need to do much better.
So today, as we sit down to shape the future of our nation's agricultural policy, I carry with me the reality of the farmers and families who sent me here to represent them. And I'm determined to get things done for them, big things we in this room can do for them. We can fix snap cuts, and we can rein in dangerous tariff strategy that is crushing farmers and families. I do wanna say that looking at the text in front of us, there are a lot of pieces in here that really will help. Disaster relief will provide much-needed stability for growers in Mid Michigan.
We grow a ton of specialty crops: potatoes, dry beans, cherries, pickles. Growers will see a meaningful change to the level playing field for their crop insurance, giving them much-needed certainty. This bill updates loan limits and supports rural development, and I have worked with to prevent foreign entities from snapping up our farmland. Make no mistake. Things are hard, and we need solutions for the moment.
I look forward to talking about all of that and how we use this opportunity for this farm bill to work with our colleagues from both sides to deliver for farmers and families who are relying on us. Thank you.
Speaker 1
General Lee yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Doctor Jackson, for five minutes.
Speaker 31
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mister chairman, I would like to thank you for the incredible work you and your staff have done to bring this farm bill together. I would also like to commend you for your leadership during the reconciliation process, which delivered historic investments for production agriculture and the one big, beautiful bill. The number one issue I heard from producers in Texas' 13th Congressional District was the need to strengthen the farm safety net. Through the one big beautiful bill, House Republicans were able to update price loss coverage reference process, enhance the agricultural risk coverage program, and make higher levels of crop insurance coverage more affordable for all.
These provisions are providing essential risk management tools for farmers facing persistently high input costs and declining commodity prices. I was also proud to have secured essential funding for USDA's animal health programs in HR 1, ensuring America's livestock producers are prepared to combat foreign animal disease outbreaks like foot and mouth disease, African swine fever, and the New World screw worm. While the One Big Beautiful bill delivered historic wins for production agriculture, this farm bill expands on those successes, securing greater access to credit for producers, enhancing working land conservation programs, and increasing investments in rural America. I would also like to highlight some of the initiatives I led that were included in this legislation. One of my biggest priorities included in my agricultural infrastructure stability act, which will provide critical risk management for the cotton producers, gens, co-op and co-ops in my district.
Persistent droughts and natural disasters have devastated cotton production in Texas in recent years, which has reverberated throughout the entire supply chain, causing many businesses to close or consolidate. This provision directs the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to develop new crop insurance policy to help cotton producers manage increased risk associated with harvesting crops that would have failed in the early growing season. Through this insurance policy, we can help ensure additional cotton volumes are harvested and produced, strengthening the downstream supply chain, and improving financial stability across the entire cotton industry. This bill also includes my rural health care technical assistance program act, which codifies and expands an existing USDA program that provides critical technical assistance to rural hospitals and health care facilities, helping to improve financial and operational performance. In recent years, many rural hospitals, in my district in particular, have across the US have been forced to shut down.
But this provision will help prevent closures and strengthen essential health care services in our rural communities. I also I'm also proud to have my Dietary Guidelines Reform Act included, ensuring greater transparency, integrity, and evidence-based nutritional information in the dietary guidelines Americans process. President Trump and Secretary Kennedy's Make America Healthy Again dietary guidelines are simple. Eat real food. This will build on the Trump administration's historic reset of the US nutritional policy and promotes real science-backed recommendations that support the American people's health and well-being.
Finally, in this legislation, I was able to establish a pilot program to review crop insurance penalties for late-planted corn in the Texas Panhandle. New seed variants have allowed corn producers in my district to maintain the same production levels in a shorter growing period, using less water from the Gala aquifer. This pilot program will help determine how planting dates impact yields and irrigation use, ensuring producers can make the best decisions for their operations while eliminating unnecessary reductions in their crop insurance coverage. Overall, this farm bill contains strong common-sense provisions that support America's farmers, ranchers, and rural communities so that they can continue feeding and clothing the world. I would again like to condemn I would again like to commend the work of chairman Thompson and his staff for writing such an impactful bill, and I am excited for today's markup and hope we can finally deliver a full five year farm bill that provides our agricultural producers with the certainty they need to remain in operation for generations to come.
And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields back. Now please recognize a parent of one of America's newest soldiers, Mister Davis, for five minutes. Thank you so much, Chair, and to the ranking member and to the committee members.
Speaker 32
There was nothing greater than to send my middle son off to the army, even though I'm air force, and to serve our country as is his dream to do. And you'll hear me talk today about young people and fulfilling their dreams. Since joining the House Agriculture Committee, I've devoted significant time to meeting and speaking with people across North Carolina's first congressional district, to hear their concerns, their issues, those things that impact their daily lives. And for too long, our farmers have faced an uphill battle. Rising input costs, tariffs, labor, and natural disasters, especially for us in North Carolina, have taken their toll.
We can add one more thing to that list if we may, and that's continuing to kick down the road a farm bill. Farmers are waiting on a new farm bill. Farmers can't keep waiting. They need our help, genuinely now. Nearly 15,000 farms closed this past year.
91% of farmers identified financial issues as the top factor impacting their mental health. And believe, I believe the American people sent us here to figure this stuff out and help solve the problems for them that they're facing. For the State of the Union, I invited Nathaniel Simmons from Hyde County. Mister chair, 17 years old. 17 years old.
Ranking member Craig, an eight-generation farmer. He started at the age of 9. He conveyed the challenges of keeping young people in agriculture. They're seeing their parents and their neighbors struggling and working from sunup to sundown, just trying to figure this stuff out, how to make ends meet. Young people are left having to decide whether it's even worth it, whether they can fulfill their dreams.
Yet, instead of being discouraged, this young man, like many others, is waking up, he's putting his boots on, and he's stepping up for the challenge. If we want a strong and prosperous nation, everyone, we must invest in young farmers and fuel it, because without them, there is no food on our tables, and there is no future for our country. We must keep agriculture within reach for young people, fundamentally. Fundamentally, we must allow young farmers to live the American dream right there on their farms. The farm is not just about the farm itself, though.
It's about communities. For those of us in these rural areas, the farm is helping the grocery stores, helping Napa and convenience stores. The farm bill is not perfect. We know it's not perfect. And I've heard from many stakeholders.
Have a ways to go, but to be clear, farmers cannot keep taking it on the chin. So no matter where this bill ends up, I look forward, and this is my commitment, to the chair, to the ranking member, and to anyone who was sent here by the people to genuinely work on these issues impacting our foreign families, consumers, and rural communities. With that, thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and our ranking member.
Speaker 1
Now I recognize the gentleman from the great dairy state of Wisconsin, Mister Van Orden, for five.
Speaker 33
Minutes. You, mister chairman, and thank you, ranking member Craig. I'd like to read a quote here. It will not be doubted that with reference to either individual or national welfare, agriculture is of primary importance. In proportion, as nations advance in population and other circumstances of maturity, this truth becomes more apparent and renders the cultivation of the soil more and more an object of public patronage.
That was written by George Washington in 1796. So when I talked to some of my colleagues who think that we should be going through this process to ensure that we can feed our people, I would remind them that the first president of the United States was an agronomist, and he understood that as we grow as a nation, we must help our agriculture industry. It's a privilege to be here today to deliver Farm Board Farm Bill 2.0 for America's farmers in rural communities. Agriculture is the cornerstone of Wisconsin and the backbone of our nation. Wisconsin farmers help keep America fed, and when agriculture succeeds in Wisconsin, rural communities thrive, supply chains stay strong, and families across the country benefit.
And that's why it's so important that we get this right. Under the Working Families Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, we made significant strides in supporting farmers, ranchers, and rural communities in Wisconsin across our nation. We got $56,000,000,000 investment in various Title I provisions, $6,000,000,000 investment in Title XI crop insurance, provides additional investment in specialty crop research initiatives and specialty crop block grants that will support a growing and thriving specialty crop industry. This significantly helps our cranberry farmers, and Wisconsin is the number one producer of cranberries in the world. We're the number one producer of ginseng for the country, and the number three producer of potatoes.
This provides $125,000,000 per year, the first mandatory funding in history for the Agriculture Research Facilities Act, assuring that the American agriculture universities have the infrastructure required to lead the world in agricultural science, technology, and innovation. It provides $1,500,000,000 over the next decade in livestock biosecurity, supporting more large animal veterinarians, USDA laboratories, vaccination developments, APHIS, and the assistance for farmers impacted by animal disease. It gets rid of the death tax. So the reason that family farms go under is because they owe the government 30-plus percent of the value of their farm when they try to go to the next generation. That is gone.
$15,000,000 per person exclusion, and that's gonna be remarkable for revitalizing our family farms and making sure it goes to the next generation. Permanent small business deduction increased to 23%. It extends a 100% immediate expensing of capital improvements, immediate expensing for new manufacturing and production facilities in America, and increases the 179 small business expensing threshold to $2,500,000. Reduce opportunity zone programs for better targeting of rural America. And following the enactment of the 2017 Trump tax cuts, small and medium sized family farms saw their effective tax rates decrease by up to 6%.
We provided critical support for farmers, improved food security, and promoted sustainable agriculture. But as farmers know, there is more work to do. This Farm Bill 2.0 invests in, excuse me, addresses critical challenges. Wisconsin is not a dairy state. It is the dairy state, and this legislation supports our dairy farmers by refining the important work in HR.
One, to support dairy risk management tools, increases the funding for market access programs and foreign market development program. Enhances financing options for producers who are unable to obtain credit from a commercial lender. Provides resources to new, young, beginning, and veteran farmers in transitioning to farming. They are the next generation, and we must help them. Protecting and enhancing the ability of commercial lenders to provide rural America with a reliable source of credit and capital, maintain mandatory funding for the organic agriculture research and extension initiative at $50,000,000 per year.
Organic Valley was started in my district in the state of Wisconsin. We're gonna continue to support the organic production through the National Organic Program, Organic Production and Market Data Initiative, and the National Organic Certification Cost Share Program that codifies agriculture grants for veterans education and training services. That's a vets. It's my bill. And that was brought in under HR 12:30.
It addresses the concerns about the conversion of private forest land, allows livestock auctioneers to invest in packaging, and creates a pilot program for the life of the farm bill to allow a small number of custom exempt facilities to sell meat producers directly to consumers within the state. And my district has the fourth largest population of Amish in the country, and it's going to help them tremendously. But beyond the policies of this program, it's about people. It's about the families who rise before dawn to tend their crops and care for their livestock. It's about the communities that depend on the success of their farms to thrive.
It's about feeding a hungry child and helping break the scourge that is the endless cycle of recidivism that has created a permanent underclass of formerly incarcerated Americans. I'm so very happy to stand with my colleagues here on both sides of the aisle to get this farm bill through and give our farmers what they need, and that is certainty. And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, this time expires. Now please recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mister Figures, for five minutes.
Speaker 34
Thank you, Mister Chairman and Ranking Member Craig. This farm bill process has long been known as one of the most bipartisan acts of Congress, and it's my hope that as we take up the largest and most consequential piece of legislation that this committee produces, that we can live up to that reputation and ensure bipartisanship is truly reflected in this markup. But expectations for a meaningful, bipartisan process are unfortunately very low this year. And that is because for the first time, as I understand it, in the history of the farm bill, significant portions have been stripped out and taken up and tucked away in what was an extremely partisan reconciliation process. So now we're left to try to pick up the pieces and make the best of a process that will produce a nontraditional and severely limited farm bill.
But, yet, I remain hopeful and optimistic. I'm just a freshman here in Congress, so I was not around for the farm bill process over the past several years. But I have hope. I have hope that we can make this bill better than what's been presented by listening and actually implementing some of the ideas that come from this side of the aisle. So, with that said, I respectfully ask for careful consideration of the amendments offered today and for good faith participation from members of this committee on both sides of the aisle throughout this markup.
And I represent a district in Alabama where the individual median income is just about $33,000. That is the reality my constituents live with every day. In my district, about 1 in 4 households rely on SNAP benefits, and yet we are here today working on a farm bill that has been described as skinny. And that's in part because SNAP and the nutrition title are largely not addressed. It was taken out and gutted during the reconciliation.
And it is, the irony is not lost on me in calling a bill that historically provides food security skinny, when this year's bill likely won't provide much food security, as it has done in the past. Over 185,000,000,000 was cut from the SNAP program that already only supplemented about $6 a day for low income people to eat. $6, at a time when eggs in Alabama cost about $6 a dozen. It's like this committee has forgotten where food comes from, and some of the policies and acts that it has supported in conjunction with this administration. Now every dollar taken from SNAP was money taken from our farmers.
Every dollar taken from SNAP was money taken from our farmers. Every dollar taken from the school lunch program was money taken from our farmers. Every ounce of beef that comes into America from Argentina is money taken away from American farmers. Every increased price due to the tariffs, every market limitation due to the tariff policies, is money taken away from our farmers. But there's good news.
We have an opportunity to recognize the error of our reconciliation ways and support and restore support for our farmers and food security for those who need it most. But this bill is not just about one title, as we all know. Titles one through 12 all matter. Together, they shape the entire landscape of our farm, food, and national security systems. For more than five decades, Congress has recognized that the farm bill only works when all of its titles work together as part of a single agricultural framework.
From the field to the fork, from conservation of the land to the commodities and specialty crops grown on it, from protections for farmer credit to rural development of the communities where those farmers live. And so far, this text does not go far enough. It falls short of our land-grant colleges. It falls short for our specialty crop producers. It falls short for rural development, for socially disadvantaged farmers, and for beginning farmers who are trying to break into an increasingly difficult industry.
And given the amount of time we knew this bill was coming, many of these provisions had the opportunity, and quite honestly, the responsibility to American farmers to be stronger. That is why the amendments I will offer today and tomorrow provide support for rural health care systems that communities depend on. They strengthen our land grant universities that serve as the backbone of agricultural research and extension, and require a clear guarantee that SNAP benefits will still be there if a state cannot or does not meet the cost sharing requirements. These are real-world consequences that deserve serious consideration, and I sincerely hope we can strengthen them today through this markup process. I believe we can still work together on what remains before us.
I believe this committee can choose dialogue over division, participation over posturing, and people over politics, at the end of the day. The constituents who send each of us here to Congress deserve nothing less from each and every one of us here. They deserve a process that reflects respect, seriousness, and bipartisan cooperation. I hope today we can give them just that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. He yields back. Now I recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Nunn, for five minutes.
Speaker 35
Well, thank you, chairman. I believe everyone in this room knows that food security is national security, and the men and women who farm our land don't just grow crops. They sustain our economy, our communities, and our country. Like many Iowans, I grew up helping on my family's century farm. I'm gonna raise sheep, plant row crop, learn early on that farming demands faith, stewardship, and long-term investment.
That long-term investment is what we think about when we think about this year's Farm Bill. Over the past few years, I've traveled across Iowa on my Farm Bill Listening Tour. I met with farmers, co-ops, ag lenders, rural leaders, Iowans, Americans, right in the heart of our country. And their message was clear, we need stability. They asked for certainty, market protection, and a real opportunity for the next generation of Americans to keep farming.
I've worked to turn those conversations into bipartisan legislation. And I'm proud that the bills before us tonight include 19 of my legislative priorities, alongside strong provisions from colleagues on both sides of the aisle. This bill builds on the investment we made in the farm safety net of $66,000,000,000 that was passed this summer, to expand opportunity. And I fought to include provisions that include lowering barriers for farm ownership, helping new and beginning farmers to provide access to credit, to codify our Reconnect broadband program to ensure that rural communities have the infrastructure modern agriculture depends on. We include provisions to strengthen the oversight of agricultural lands and enhance agricultural and cybersecurity protections, priorities that I'm proud to have helped champion.
This bill also strengthened animal welfare protections by cracking down on cruel puppy mills through improved coordination with enforcement at both the federal and local levels. We've done a lot of good things in this bill, mister chairman, and I'm proud to say that Iowa farmers had a direct hand in what has been included. But the farm bill is only part of the equation for Iowa's 87,000 family farms and hundreds of thousands of farmers across our country. They need certainty when it comes to things like biofuel policy. While we've made meaningful progress over the last year, including my work to extend 45Z tax credits and the support of friends on both sides of the aisle here, there's more to be done, both in sustainable aviation fuel and in biofuels.
But passing this farm bill is an important step forward for America's agriculture, but that's not the sole job. We owe it to our farmers, our families, and our friends to deliver certainty and stability in the market. And that means yearwide, year round, nationwide e 15. We have the opportunity right now to show that Congress can still meet the moment. I hope we seize it.
I'm proud of the bipartisan legislation that has brought these priorities together, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it. We can pass a farm bill that matters, a farm bill that helps America, and a farm bill that moves forward with your round nationwide E15 to help both the farmer and the family when it comes to feeding a family as well as fueling up at the pump. I look forward to moving this bill forward again, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields back. Now please recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Vindman, for five minutes.
Speaker 36
Thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank you, ranking member. I agree with the ranking member, the ranking member that this farm bill fails to meet the moment. I was happy to see that there are some major wins in the bill. I'd like to thank Chairman Thompson for including my US-Israel agriculture cooperation improvement and expansion act, which supports the Bard Fund. This program will solidify our alliances in the Middle East and ensure continued collaboration between Israel and American agricultural scientists, creating innovation that benefits everyone.
I was also happy to see that a portion of my REAP Modernization Act was included in the bill. The Rural Energy for America program is a lifeline for farmers and rural small businesses to make energy efficiency improvements and cut their electrical bills. But this bill still has a long way to go. I'm troubled to see that it wipes out state and local regulations on pesticide use and labeling. I'm also troubled that the bill, as written, will make it harder for people who've gotten sick from pesticides to find justice in court.
I'm also concerned that the bill doesn't address the growing hunger crisis in America. It doesn't reverse the record snap cuts in the big ugly bill, even though they were harmful and unpopular with the American people. It doesn't restore critical bipartisan programs to get farm-fresh food to schools and food banks. It doesn't restore the market share that our farmers have lost to competitors in Brazil and Argentina, and it doesn't make food more affordable for hardworking families in the failing, flailing Trump economy. However, I believe that we have a great opportunity here to make a bill that supports American farmers, lowers costs, and helps feed working families.
Today, we have a chance to ensure that localities can make common-sense policies to protect their communities from toxic chemicals. We can support American ecology and eradicate invasive pests like the spotted lanternfly. We can reverse some of the unpopular or harmful snap provisions from the big ugly bill, and restore anti-hunger programs that were canceled by Doge. We can work to cut rural energy costs and lower costs at the grocery store for American families. We can support a robust agritourism economy that allows our farmers to have multiple streams of income, and encourages Americans to know where their food comes from.
We can commit more money to agricultural research and support national security, as well as farm security. Today, I look forward to hearing my colleagues' amendments to this bill, and calling my colleagues to consider my amendments as we work towards a farm bill that truly meets the moment. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields back. Please recognize the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Newhouse, for five minutes.
Speaker 37
Thank you, mister chairman, and as well as ranking member Craig. I just wanna say I'm pleased to be able to speak in favor of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026. I'm delighted to mark up this important piece of legislation, something that I think we can all agree is long overdue. You know, as a third generation farmer, my son being now the fourth generation, and also as a proud member of this committee, I know all too well the importance of the Farm Bill and happy that with the work that was put into this year's version. I wanna take a few minutes to highlight some of the provisions that I'm most happy to see, that will greatly benefit my constituents in Central Washington as well as farmers around the country.
For those of you who may not know, Washington is home to over 300 specialty crops. This farm bill provides over $1,000,000,000 in support for specialty crops in critical areas such as research, market competitiveness, and protection from pests and diseases. It also addresses other issues for the industry, such as waiving the matching funds requirement for the specialty crop research initiative, making improvements to the specialty crop block grant program, and establishing a specialty crop advisory committee with a member seat on the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Board. Throughout my years in Congress, I've heard repeatedly of another important matter, which is the need for a standing framework for specialty crop economic and disaster assistance. Specialty crops often must wait months to receive vital assistance, and that's just unacceptable.
The bill before us addresses this issue by providing a framework for the USDA to use for future disaster and economic assistance for specialty crops. The need for a simplified, consistent framework for specialty crop assistance is long overdue, and I'm glad we are taking action today to address this long-standing issue. Another portion of the legislation that I'm particularly excited about is the trade title. We make significant investments in the market access program and the foreign market development program, a priority that I have championed for years, as I have the technical assistance for specialty crops, emerging markets, and priority trade funds. Trade promotion and access to new and emerging markets is critical to ensuring the success of farmers in my trade-dependent state of Washington and across the United States.
The trade title also includes a provision that transfers the Food for Peace program to the USDA. Food for Peace plays a critical role in preventing starvation in places around the world that need it most, while also providing American farmers additional market opportunities. It makes sense to move this program to USDA and allow a commodity-focused agency to manage and execute the program's mission while ensuring accountability and that funds will be spent responsibly. You know, these are just a handful of the common sense provisions in this bill. And while I'd love to speak on about more of them, I'll just end today by urging my colleagues to vote in favor of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026.
I want to thank you, mister chairman, for your many trips around the country to get valuable input and to listen to farmers in so many different states. And I also wanna give thanks to the staff that works so diligently on this piece of legislation. It is a product that I truly believe will benefit our nation's farmers, our ranchers, and also our rural communities. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. He yields back. Now please recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Riley, for five minutes.
Speaker 38
Oh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our farmers are the heart and soul of rural Upstate New York. They really are the very best of who we are, up before dawn in the freezing cold to milk the cows. On the sun beating down to pick the apples. No excuses.
No complaints. No days off. Really, nobody works harder. And they don't ask for a hell of a lot in return. Just a fair shot to make a decent living doing the work they love, work that very often has been in the family for generations.
I represent 4,547 farms across nearly 1,000,000 acres, and almost all of those farms are family-owned. And the average net income is just over $45,000 a year. So these are families who are just trying to keep it together and make it work. And the thing is, these families aren't just up against the conditions. They're up against a system that has been rigged against them.
Big ag monopolies around here have all the lobbyists and corporate PACs. They spent close to $30,000,000 in the last election. So literally 600 times the amount an Upstate family farmer makes in an entire year. And they've used all that influence to stack the deck in our farm economy. They get bigger and richer, and our small family farms get crushed and left behind.
And so I came to Congress, and I asked to serve on this committee to change that. I want a farm bill that puts Upstate New York's small family farms first, for once. And I've been listening to all the opening statements here, and it sounds like, you know, a whole bunch of people on this side say this is a terrible bill. A whole bunch of people on this side say this is a great bill. I think the answer is somewhere in between.
And I'm gonna come into this markup with an open mind. Bill includes a lot of my priorities for Upstate New York's family farms, also includes some stuff I very strongly oppose, and it's missing some stuff that needs to be added. The good stuff, Upstate New York grows the best apples and makes the best cider in the world, period. It's not up for debate. I know this, having grown up a few blocks from not a cider mill, but the cider mill in Endicott.
So the farm bill has my bipartisan legislation to cut red tape, waive fees, and make it easier for our apple growers to take advantage of cutting edge research and innovation. I thought you'd like that part. Yeah. Farm bill also includes my bar bipartisan legislation to deploy middle mile broadband across rural America. This is gonna connect our rural communities to economic development, public health.
Basic necessities that are easy to get in the cities, but too often a luxury in Upstate New York. I also know that our dairy farmers are at the mercy of a complex, bureaucratic, and outdated price setting system that too often pays too little for their product. A lot of times, they can't even recover their costs, and they're literally operating at negative margins. So I'm proud that the farm bill includes my bipartisan legislation to update the milk pricing formulas with the most accurate, most up-to-date data about dairy farmers' actual costs. When we have fair prices for milk, that's good for dairy farmers, it's good for consumers, and it's good for our rural economy.
Really thankful to the folks at Dutch Hollow Farm and Skodak for working with me on that. I'm also glad to see this bill extend the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act to cover breakfast. And one of the things I've heard time and again visiting Upstate New York family farms is anxiety for the next generation. Older farmers at the end of their careers who want the farm to stay in the family, younger farmers at the start of their careers who want the same thing. But the barriers are so high, the margins are so small, and the uncertainty is so much.
So the farm bill includes my bipartisan legislation to improve access to credit for the next generation of farmers. It cuts red tape, makes it quicker and easier to get capital, because why should it be so easy for investment bankers on Wall Street to get credit and so damn hard for young farmers in Steventon and Kinderhook? So there's a lot of good stuff in here, but there's also stuff that I very strongly oppose and will not support, including immunity for pesticide manufacturers and handouts to the chemical companies. We've got provisions in here that could interfere with labeling, practices for kosher and halal foods, and language that could let USDA outsource good union jobs with CSCA. These are harmful provisions, and I'll support amendments to remove them.
And finally, there's some stuff that's been left out of this farm bill, including some things that have to be added to earn my support. I want us to undo the devastating snap cuts from the one big, ugly bill. Congress never should've cut public health by 1 trillion dollars to fund tax breaks for Wall Street, and we need to undo that. We need to do more to address the housing crisis in rural America. And I'm hoping that we will add my bipartisan bills to make tractors safer, SNAP benefits more secure, irrigation systems less expensive, yogurt more accessible for kids, and utility bills lower for rural families.
At the end of the day, the question for me here isn't whether this is a good bill for a political party. I'm looking for whether it's a good bill for Upstate New York. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 3
Gentlemen, time has expired. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mister Weed, for five minutes. I tell you what.
Speaker 39
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm proud to stand in support of this farm bill. Since I joined congress, I've heard from our farmers over and over again on the importance of getting a farm bill done. We've got so many important parts done with the working families' tax cuts. Our farmers depended on the investments we made for them, and it was incredibly disappointing to see our friends across the aisle not support those investments.
However, I am hopeful that we can have strong bipartisan support this time around, and get this strong farm bill passed so our producers can get the help they desperately need. As we so often hear around here, food security is national security, and hopefully, that is reflected during this markup. Wisconsin has such a rich agricultural heritage, ranging from the traditional row crops of corn and soybeans to specialty crops like Door County's famed cherries, and 60% of the nation's cranberry crops to our world famous Wisconsin dairy. America's dairy land has been producing world-renowned cheeses, butter, and yogurt for generations. Our producers in Wisconsin's 8th District and beyond deserve to have our support.
This farm bill does exactly that. For our dairy farmers in general, the unprecedented increase in support for trade promotion programs will provide our farmers with new opportunities to grow. The bill increases support for our specialty crops and organic programs. These, of course, will help ensure Americans have access to healthy, high-quality American foods. It also ensures that USDA will safeguard the use of common names, which is vital to the many cheesemakers in my district to remain competitive.
Everyone knows that cheeses made in Wisconsin, such as Parmesan, feta, gorgonzola, and all the others, are better than their European counterparts, and people all over the world deserve to have access to that no matter how hard they try to implement unfair trading practices. In HR one, we were able to authorize production cost surveys for dairy farmers and processors to increase transparency, to help manage risk for both. Additionally, we were able to expand the dairy nutrition incentives program to include all dairy milk and hard cheeses. Later on in the markup, we will hopefully add yogurt as well. This move provides an excellent opportunity to encourage SNAP participants to make healthier choices at the grocery store.
I think all people should be consuming more whole milk, cheese, and yogurt. They are some of the healthiest choices families can make, and it is a good use of SNAP dollars to incentivize that. Additionally, this bill codifies the important adjustments that the Trump administration has made to dietary guidelines, ensuring that Americans are being advised on their decisions based on science and transparency. This is vital for every American family to make the most healthy decision for themselves. Along the lines of SNAP, I'm also proud that the provision from mine and Representative Brown's EBT fee-free act has been included in the manager's amendment.
This will ensure that neither SNAP participants nor retailers ever must be subjected to potentially costly EBT processing fees. Neither consumers nor retailers could shoulder any more unnecessary fees. Now they never have to worry. I wanna reiterate my support for this bill, and I wanna thank the chairman and the rest of the committee for not giving up on their commitment to rural America to get this farm bill done. This is the first step.
I hope our friends across the aisle will join us in supporting this vital lifeline to our producers when so many of them are struggling. I also hope our friends in the Senate can do their job and also pass their version of the farm bill, we can finally get this to the president's desk, and let's get the job done. I yield back.
Speaker 3
Gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes Mister Manion from New York for five minutes.
Speaker 40
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the ranking member Craig. I serve on this committee to represent the interests of a district where agriculture matters: dairy, specialty crops, family farms that have been there for generations. I also represent families who are managing an affordability crisis and are stretching every dollar. Farmers in Central New York and the Mohawk Valley are facing rising input costs, closed export markets, and uncertainty heading into the next planning season.
At the same time, grocery prices remain elevated, and working families are feeling it every week. Historically, the Farm Bill has always worked when we work together to address the concerns of farmers, as well as families that rely on nutrition assistance. Yet this proposal fails to restore the $187,000,000,000 in snap cuts, including the unprecedented cost shift to states, which governors across the country have said will undermine the program's financial integrity and long-term viability. And these cuts aren't just devastating to those who find themselves in a position where they need food assistance. They've resulted in lost markets for farms across Central New York and the Mohawk Valley.
The government has literally taken a customer away from our producers. In New York alone, 46,000 children and 291,000 adults with disabilities rely on SNAP. And in New York 22, over half of the SNAP households include a person with a disability. These are seniors on a fixed income. These are veterans.
These are families caring for a loved one with higher medical costs and fewer work options. SNAP averages about $6 a day. That is not excessive by any reasonable measure. And instead of building bipartisan consensus, the bill includes poison pills like shielding large pesticide corporations from accountability, and overriding state animal welfare standards that farmers have already invested in meeting. It does nothing to address the root cause of rising farm costs, the inflationary, unpredictable tariffs that farmers in my district tell me are squeezing their margins and limiting market access.
It does nothing to meaningfully stabilize family farm income as bankruptcies rise and USDA projects further income declines. We should be doing better. We should be supporting farmers and real market relief, and predictable conservation funding. We should be protecting SNAP so children, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities don't go hungry. We should be restoring stability to rural economies instead of shifting unfunded mandates onto states and counties.
That's why I support the Farm and Family Relief Act, real assistance for family farmers, protection for SNAP recipients, and reasserting congressional authority over the tariffs driving so much of this pain. I do want to acknowledge one important inclusion, what I see as a bright spot in this piece of legislation, and that's the bipartisan rural microentrepreneur assistance program that I introduced with Representative Zach Nunn. It's getting more expensive to chase the American dream, especially in our rural communities. And this language will increase the maximum loan amount available to rural entrepreneurs to $75,000, to better reflect current business start-up and expansion costs. It also expands how that money can be used, giving flexibility to use up to half of those funds for construction and real-estate improvement costs.
These common sense changes will give business owners the resources to improve their physical spaces and revitalize our main streets. I'm grateful that this bipartisan practical reform is included because strengthening access to capital for rural microbusinesses is exactly the kind of targeted economic development we should be advancing, and an example of what's possible when we work together across the aisle. We have a couple of long nights ahead of us. I hope we use that time to make this bill worthy of the farmers and families we represent. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Speaker 3
Gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Miss Pennsylvania, Mister Resnihan, for five minutes.
Speaker 41
First, thank you, Chairman Thompson, for being a champion for Pennsylvania farmers in rural communities across America and for your leadership on the Farm, Food, and National Security Act. In Northeastern Pennsylvania, I represent dairy farmers, specialty crop growers, and small, multigenerational family farms who are being forced to work longer hours for thinner margins. They're battling rising feed costs, supply chain disruptions, and unfair market pressures. Congress has a responsibility to ensure federal farm policy works for them, not against them. This farm bill answers that call.
I am particularly proud that it includes my bipartisan local farmers feeding our communities act, co-led by my colleagues representative Riley, representative Pingri, and representative Valadao. Far too often, the conversations around hunger leave out the very people who grow, raise, and produce the food our families depend on. This program will reduce the barriers between our farmers and local communities by creating a clear path to put fruit, fresh fruit, healthy fruit, foods like veggies, milk, and cheese on the plates of the people that need it. I'm also proud this farm bill also prioritizes specialty crop competitiveness, delivers long overdue regulatory relief so American farmers and ranchers can focus on producing food instead of navigating red tape, and provides critical support to rural America, including strengthening rural broadband, expanding access to health care, meeting child care needs, investing in workforce development, streamlining permitting processes, and modernizing rural water infrastructure. These are challenges I hear from the people across Pennsylvania's 8th Congressional District every single day, and I'm proud that we have found ways to address these needs with bipartisan support.
Finally, mister chairman, while there were several policies that we were not able to include in this bill, I look forward to working with you to address them moving forward. Chief among them is the Training and Nutrition Stability Act, which would remove the disincentive for individuals to participate in Learn as You Earn programs through the SNAP employment and training program. I know this is a shared priority, and I'm committed to finding a path forward together. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill, and, chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 3
Gentlemen, he is back. The chair now recognizes the gentle lady from Maryland, McLean Delaney, for five minutes.
Speaker 42
Thank you to our chair and our ranking committee member. As the only Maryland federal delegate on the House Agricultural Committee. I take this work very seriously and proudly represent Maryland's 6th Congressional District, which represents Western Maryland and our Montgomery County Ag Reserve. The work of this committee touches every corner of our communities, supporting farmers, strengthening small towns and main streets, and protecting the land and water for future generations. It also helps our US competitiveness and our national security.
And there is no moment when the responsibility matters more than when we come together to craft a farm bill. And this is a personal issue for me because I grew up in a farming family. The farm bill is more than legislation. It is really a blueprint for our future and for our American agriculture. Coming in as a first-time member of this congress, I was honored to join this committee, not only to tackle the critical issues faced by farm country, but also to do so in a bipartisan spirit.
This is the principle that this committee has uniquely upheld even in the most challenging and diverse, divisive times. And we have the opportunity before us to put politics aside and work for the betterment of the people we represent. While I appreciate the majority's efforts to reauthorize the 2018 Farm Bill, a long overdue step. The bill before us still falls short. It doesn't address the deeper economic struggles producers face or the hardship that millions of working families, small businesses, and manufacturers continue to endure under a trade war that cost our farmers over $25,000,000,000, and contributed to a 46% increase in farm bankruptcies.
I'm glad to see.
Speaker 42
Farmers are due some relief under the Supreme Court when they struck down the president's reckless tax scheme, but the president shows no bounds. In retaliation, he has placed a 15% levy on imports. When will this stop? Trump's illegal tariffs have cost my hardworking Maryland families over $1,700 per household and $4,000,000,000 statewide, with Western Maryland farmers and small businesses being hit the hardest. We, as Democrats in our caucus, have offered a solution.
The Family and Farm Relief Act would give our farmers the certainty they need in the trade war, and provide stability for rural communities. This current bill still does not meet the need. We also cannot ignore what this moment demands. Families across this country are still struggling with higher grocery prices, yet this bill does nothing to restore basic food assistance even after Republicans cut over 187,000,000,000 from SNAP in HR one. 42,000,000 people rely on SNAP, including, in my district, 1 in 9 Marylanders, half of them children.
At a time when food costs are rising, we should not only be pulling away assistance, like my colleagues in this room did just a few months ago. Instead, I want to work on restoring support. This bill rose back even modest gains made in the 2024 Farm Bill, including funding for fruit and vegetable incentive programs. And many Maryland families and farms fall to utilize SNAP, but also many farmers sell into the SNAP program. This legislation also has an opportunity to address the broader hurt across rural America.
The committee has the tools to strengthen rural broadband, invest in childcare, bolster housing, address the skyrocketing costs of utilities, and more in the rural development title of this bill. But it barely moves the needle. We have a chance to do better, and we can. Right now, we face a real risk, splintering our bipartisan coalition that has sustained the Farm Bill for nearly a century. Since 1933, farmers, rural communities, and advocates have come together across party lines to make a farm bill a reality.
And what is stunning is that same coalition once drove tractors from across the country to the capital in 1979, standing shoulder to shoulder in protest, when the bill before them failed to meet the moment. I remember that moment. My dad spoke about it. Their determination built the framework that supports our food systems and rural economies to this day. If we lose that unity, we put politics above the needs of farmers and rural communities.
We risk more than just a bill. We risk undermining nearly a century of bipartisan collaboration and the trust of the people who feed and sustain our nation. I look forward to working with my colleagues to craft a farm bill that truly works when it reflects the needs, the resilience, and the voices of rural America. I yield back.
Speaker 1
General Lee's time has expired. Now I recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Messmer, for five minutes.
Speaker 43
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am proud to support the Farm, Food, and National Security Act to help the 9,300 family farms in my district. This bill represents years of hard work and incorporates answers to nearly a decade of requests, not just from farmers, but from American families, rural schools and hospitals, and small businesses. The farm bill before us does not just keep family farms operating. It also lowers consumer energy costs, invests in rural infrastructure, improves opportunity for conservation and recreation.
It enhances access to food for Americans struggling with hunger, and it bolsters the security of our food supply chains against international threats. This is not a partisan bill, as detailed by my colleague representative Johnson. In fact, several of the bipartisan priorities I introduced this year have made their home within the text of this farm bill. These include the DOD and USDA Interagency Research Act, co-led with my friend, congressman Don Davis, the SNAP Online Access Act, which I introduced alongside the gentleman from California, representative Adam Gray, the Restoring American's Floodplains Act, which I drafted in partnership with congressman Gabe Vasquez, and the Biomanufacturing and Jobs Act, which I introduced alongside ranking member Angie Craig, representative Mark Alford, and representative Kristen McDonnell Rivett. While these are just a small snapshot of the cumulative impacts of this year's Farm Bill, these four bills represent the shared Republican and Democrat priorities with profound impacts not just on Indiana, but the rest of the nation as well.
The DOD and USDA Interagency Research Act, for example, strategically incentivizes public and private partnerships to leverage innovation in both American agriculture and defense sectors to address risks to our most critical resource, food. The SNAP Online Access Act provides a modern solution to the food deserts in both urban and rural America by allowing SNAP families to purchase their groceries online. The Restoring America's Flood Plains Act reshapes the way USD for USDA formats floodplain easements by ensuring that farmers, landowners, and local conservationists remain
Speaker 43
The heart of flood prevention efforts that protect communities and revitalize injured watersheds. The Biomanufacturing and Jobs Act directly expands markets for American food products to the USDA's biopreferred program, enhancing the productivity of a $489,000,000,000 market that accounts for 100,000 jobs in Indiana alone. These are the kind of common-sense bills that make up the 2026 Farm Bill. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act to provide stability for this generation of farmers and secure the viability of the next generation. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman. Yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from Maine, Miss Pingree, for five minutes.
Speaker 44
Thank you, mister chair, and thank you to you and the ranking member for the tremendous amount of work you've put into this bill. But, sadly, I still feel this bill is a disappointment for farmers, for families, and for rural America. It is a very challenging time to be a farmer or to live in rural America. Farm bankruptcies are up 46%. We lost 15,000 farms last year alone.
We continue to see consolidation hurt small and medium-sized farmers who just can't make ends meet. Big farms are getting bigger, and smaller farms are closing their doors. And even though grocery prices keep rising, Republicans slash SNAP by $187,000,000,000 in the big ugly bill, taking food off the table for 42,000,000 Americans, seniors, children, veterans, people with disabilities. And then they handed the states the bill. Some governors have said that they may have to drop SNAP entirely, and this bill does nothing to fix that.
The tariffs have been an unmitigated disaster, causing chaos and hurting the American farmer. Here's a story from a farmer in Maine. He was trying to buy a single piece of equipment to process organic Brussels sprouts. It's only made overseas. Because of the economic chaos coming out of Washington, he has to guess the weight of steel when the day arrives, and hope prices won't spike before the machine clears customs.
And this bill doesn't help farmers impacted by Trump's trade wars. Meanwhile, Maine's iconic blueberry industry is suffering. The acreage down, the prices down, the costs doubled. Our dairy sector has collapsed from over 600 farms to 140. While this bill makes some policy tweaks, it makes zero investment to help those farmers and families.
We should be investing in resilience for farmers facing the challenges of extreme weather, heat, drought, floods, and invasive species. While I was glad to see this administration launch a regenerative agriculture pilot program, I am deeply concerned that they are merely shuffling funds from other areas already funded, and have set so far no standards. You could be claiming you were regenerative because you were doing new till while still spraying glyphosate on your fields. The bill also provides insufficient funding to support farmers who are organic or transitioning to organic, which is a proven standard that helps soil health and has clear standards. We are also cutting other conservation programs that help with soil health.
The Republicans are reshuffling 1 billion dollars from EQIP, a core conservation program that is oversubscribed in Maine and across the nation. They're also eliminating farmland conservation transactions that give beginning farmers and underserved farmers access to affordable land. They're failing to increase GUSNP, which will provide more funding for fruits and vegetables, stripping tribal authority for the food distribution program, eliminating tribal access to agriculture mediation programs that help resolve loan disputes and farm transition. And buried in the energy title is a severe restriction on USDA funding for solar on farmland. And while I understand we can't put solar panels on all farms, it is written so broadly that it would effectively end solar investments for rural businesses, beginning farmers and rural development programs alike at a time when energy prices are unsustainable for families across the country, and farmers need every support they can get to bring down costs.
This bill includes harmful pesticide language that is a handout to Big Chemical, that states rights and creates a liability shield that prevents people from fighting for their health claims. I will submit an amendment to remove this, and I thank the Maha movement for seeing the importance of this and working hard on making the public aware of how harmful this would be to our health. This bill does not do enough to deal with the PFAS challenges that farmers are facing, yet another toxic chemical. So I hope we can amend this bill and make it good enough to improve it so that we can all vote for it. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, General East. Yields back. Another, please recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mister Harris, for five minutes.
Speaker 45
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, we do once again wanna remember our prayers to the families of Doug Lamaffa and to our colleague and friend, Jim Baird, the passing of his wife, and also to our colleague, Jonathan Jackson, in the passing of his father. I wanna begin tonight by recognizing the hard work that has gone into this year's Farm Bill, Mr. Chairman. There are many strong, meaningful provisions in this legislation, and they deserve to be commended. First, we're saving our pork producers from California's disastrous Prop 12.
Families who have raised hogs for generations in North Carolina have been living under the uncertainty because of one state's decision to impose its reckless standards on the rest of our nation. When outside mandates drive up cost or shut producers out of the markets, it doesn't just hurt farmers. It ripples through small towns and working families. That's not how interstate commerce is supposed to work. The constitution gives Congress the responsibility to protect the free flow of commerce among the states.
Needless regulations like Proposition 12 are not how agriculture is meant to function in America, and I'm grateful that these protections are included here by incorporating our Save Our Bacon Act. Second, I strongly support reauthorizing and strengthening conservation programs like EQIP and CSP. These voluntary programs give farmers the tools to be good stewards of their land, while keeping their operations productive and viable. Conservation works best when it is locally driven and built on partnerships, not federal mandates that increase costs for farmers and for taxpayers. There's so much in this legislation that supports farmers and producers.
However, we're not yet where we need to be. We should continue to work to ensure that programs like SNAP operate with integrity and clear eligibility standards, consistent with congressional intent. We must ensure we're not increasing the size and authority of the bureaucratic state in Washington. And when we invest federal research dollars, those investments should prioritize American interests first and foremost, not embed preferences or partnerships with multinational institutions that may not share our values or priorities. This farm bill makes important progress.
But if we're serious about fiscal responsibility, draining the swamp, and protecting American farmers, these concerns will be addressed by adopting some amendments that will be offered. I look forward to working with my colleagues to strengthen this legislation so that it fully reflects those principles and the values of the millions of Americans who are directly impacted by this bill. Mister chairman, again, I commend and thank you for your hard work. And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentleman. He yields back. Now I recognize the gentleman from California, Mister Carvajal, for five minutes.
Speaker 46
Thank you very much, Mister Chairman and Ranking Member Craig. I am proud to represent California's Central Coast, an agricultural powerhouse that is essential to our state's status as the vegetable and fruit basket of the world. Agriculture is our region's largest industry, and the essential food we grow benefits families locally, nationally, and around the globe. The farm bill is a critically important piece of legislation for many stakeholders in my district and across our nation as well. That is why it is so essential that it is done right.
Unfortunately, the current bill falls short of that. Since our last Farm Bill proposal marked up in 2024, my staff and I continue to engage with committee members, their staffs, and stakeholders to find common ground and to pursue bipartisan solutions that best support our producers, farmers, farm workers, and families, something that can be a win-win for everyone. When reviewing the bill, I was pleased to see some of the bipartisan measures my colleagues and I worked on that are part of the proposed 2024 Farm Bill found their way back into the bill, including provisions drawn from legislation I worked on with the late representative Doug Limalfa to support specialty crop mechanization projects, as well as my fire safe electrical corridors bill with representatives Valladau, Costa, and Fitzpatrick to simplify the process of removing hazardous vegetation near power lines to allow for a more streamlined approach to combating wildfire risk. While this farm bill contains some remnants of past bipartisan cooperation, the committee's inability to work collaboratively on mutually agreed upon farm bill policies has diminished since the Trump administration's return to the White House. In the lead-up to the introduction of this bill, Democrats were excluded from the drafting process, and the result is legislation that reflects just that.
As expected, the bill includes no provision reversing the big ugly bills, $187,000,000,000 cut to SNAP nor attempts to delay the detrimental administrative and benefit cost shifts it places on states. This decision to not address these major issues will result in millions at risk of having their benefits cut or being kicked off the program entirely due to the looming cost shift onto states. In my district alone, more than 119,000 people depend on SNAP, and thousands of them will feel the impacts of these decisions. This bill not only fails to address these concerns, but also removes positive investments from past efforts that would have provided millions in additional funding for fruit and vegetable incentive programs. And if that wasn't enough damage, the majority also chose to eliminate the additional investments in the emergency food assistance program that were included in the 2024 bill, including 134,000,000 for the food bank commodities and 100,000,000 for storage and distribution support.
This is unfolding at a time when families' food costs are surging, and farmers' input costs are rising as a result of President Trump's misguided tariffs. On the Central Coast, specialty crops comprise the lion's share of agriculture commodities, and President Trump's reckless trade wars have impacted many of these local growers and businesses in the area, including the loss of international markets for their products. This president continues to simultaneously play both the role of chief arsonist and firefighter, creating the problem then stepping in to take credit for fixing it, often at taxpayers' expense. Yet this problem has not fixed businesses, and everyday families continue paying the price for these full hefty tariffs. Even with this administration's announcement of farm assistance for specialty crop growers, producers across the country are expected to receive only $1 billion in aid to mitigate the impacts of these tariffs.
This is only a fraction of the sector's outstanding need, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation. While I was pleased to see additional provisions in the Farm Bill for specialty crops, this bill does not do enough to address farmers' current needs. Outside of the needs of families and farmers, this bill also fails to make any improvements in the area of animal welfare. Whether that's not including bipartisan bills like the Great Hound Protection Act or attempting to overturn California's Prop 12. This farm bill retreats progress and seeks to undermine current humane standards.
Speaker 1
place. Time has expired. I thank the gentleman. And please recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Taylor, for five minutes.
Speaker 47
Thank you, chairman. This is a monumental day for our farmers and rural communities across the country. The Farm Bill represents not just a historic piece of legislation, but our continued commitment to the men and women who feed America and the world. So I wanna use my time to highlight not only what we have already done in this congress, but the good that this bill will provide to each one of our districts. To start, last July, President Trump and the Republicans delivered the largest investment ever in our agricultural sector.
That bill reduced the cost of crop insurance for our farmers, doubled agricultural trade programs that send our products around the world, invested in animal disease prevention to protect our food supply, and made critical tax provisions permanent, like the death tax exemption, and much more. Promises were made and kept. Now we are taking a critical first step to pass a full five-year farm bill with the Farm, Food, and National Security Act. I applaud Chairman Thompson for leading on this legislation, which should have bipartisan support. After all, this bill is not only budget neutral, but it includes several critical provisions to help those in rural America.
The farm bill in front of us expands rural broadband, boosts farmers' ability to get credit, and cracks down on our adversaries buying up farmland, just to name a few provisions. And I'm proud to have been involved in multiple items that have been included in this farm bill. First, my Rural Broadband Assistant Act is in this bill to help small towns like those in my district get access to the federal broadband programs. My district in Southern Ohio is one of the least-served areas in the country, and this will help you get connected to the modern economy. Broadband has been my number one priority since I joined Congress, and I'm proud to help deliver results back to Southern Ohio.
Nearly all the water infrastructure in my district is well beyond its life expectancy. I led legislation to reauthorize the vital water infrastructure programs at the USDA to assist rural communities in modernizing their water systems. That is also in this bill. I'm proud that this bill backs up the Trump administration to stop the takeover of our prime farmland by solar panels. This is a massive issue in Southern Ohio and across rural America, and stopping this takeover is a huge win for the next generation of farmers.
Special thanks are due to congressman Boston and his team for all their efforts in leading this charge. This is just the tip of the iceberg of what this bill will do. By passing this bill, we have the chance to help our rural communities and reduce costs for our farmers, and in turn, reduce costs for all Americans. The American people spoke loud and clear in November 2024. They wanted us to let deliver, excuse me.
They wanted us to deliver results. We delivered on July 4, and it's time for us to deliver again. Mister chairman, I look forward to passing this bill. Make America and agriculture great again, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentleman. Gentleman yields back. Hearing no further discussion, the committee will now move to the consideration of the bill. And we've time for staff to need some time to be set, or we're able to move right ahead. Okay.
Alright. Let's start to the table. By the way, y'all did great. You
Speaker 1
We kind of thought it was gonna be 10:00 easy. So thanks for yielding back 40 minutes. My intent is to go no later than 11:59. My life experience says nothing good happens after midnight. So I have experienced those markups that go wee into the wee hours, and it's painful when I don't think it's effective.
Speaker 2
Mister chairman, may I just say that mister Crawford wins the award for Yes. He does. Best opening statement.
Speaker 44
Cycle it. Yeah. There you go. That's the problem. That's what I worry about.
Well, if I go to drink some coffee, I'll feel better. But then, in two hours, I won't go to sleep. You know? And we have to get up.
Speaker 1
Anyone been recognized? Not yet. We've been waiting for staff to get in place.
Speaker 25
It's gonna be an offer. That's all okay. Yeah. There I didn't have that before the credit. What are you doing?
Speaker 1
Alright. I think we have everyone in place. And so we're gonna proceed with the consideration of the bill. Does anyone understand that Mister Buzensky has an amendment at the desk under title one. We're just dealing with Title One right now.
Speaker 22
Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Second. I have an amendment at the desk, amendment number 2.
Speaker 1
Alright. Everyone has it? Very good. Miss has offered an amendment. The clerk will report the title of the amendment.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the amendment will be considered read. I now recognize a distinguished gentle lady to sponsor the amendment for up to five minutes for an explanation of her amendment.
Speaker 22
Mister chairman, my amendment would require a mandatory base acre update to better align Title One commodity programs with current planting realities. The goal of this update is fairness, fiscal responsibility, and strengthening the long-term integrity of the farm safety net. As you all know, this is an issue I've spoken about in our last two committee markups, and I even introduced a bill on this topic last summer with Congressman Johnson. If this had been a normal farm bill process, I would have appreciated a debate on this topic, but Republicans pursued a partisan path with reconciliation that included only a voluntary update. I want to be clear.
A voluntary update does nothing to address the root problem here. Title I payments are still made on historical base acres, not necessarily on what a farmer plants today. The fact that there has been no mandatory base acre update since the 1990s means that there are egregious discrepancies between what is being planted and what we are paying for. It's outrageous that a farmer can be paid for one commodity while planting another. Think of it this way.
A farmer may have base in cotton and collect a payment of upwards of $100. But let's say they planted corn, and maybe they get a crop insurance indemnity too. Our current setup allows farmers to collect payments from the USDA for multiple crops on the same acre and still compete in the market. And that's not to mention that we make payments on acres that aren't even planted. In my view, funneling money to up to unplanted acres is not in the best interest of farmers, and it's certainly not in the best interest of taxpayers. How is this not waste, fraud, and abuse?
We need to get serious here. We need, if we allow this to continue, we deserve any scrutiny that comes our way about these programs. A mandatory base area update strengthens the credibility of the safety net. It would strengthen taxpayer confidence, and it is our role to take that seriously. I don't think any farmer out there would tell you things on the farm are the same as they were 30 years ago.
They'd tell you that things aren't the same as they were 5 years ago. So why are we clinging to a program set up that does nothing to address culture in 2026 does not look the same as it did decades ago. Our policy should not be frozen in a different era. Illinois and Midwestern farmers want a safety net that reflects the risks they face today, not the planning decisions of generations ago. A mandatory base acre update is a practical, responsible step in that direction, and I urge the adoption of this amendment.
I yield back.
Speaker 1
And gentleman yields back. Other members that we wish to speak on this, anyone on the Republican side, Miss McDonald Rivett, recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 30
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to representative Butzinski for raising this really important issue. It's our responsibility to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars and to ensure that our farm programs reflect actual production. Under current law, payments are still tied to base acres established decades ago, meaning some producers can receive support for crops they no longer plant, and in some cases, for land that is no longer in production. A mandatory base acre update would modernize the system by aligning payments with what farmers are actually growing today.
For states like Michigan, where planting patterns have shifted significantly over time, this ensures fairness and accuracy in the programs that support producers. And for taxpayers across the country, it ensures their dollars are being spent efficiently. I urge a guest vote on this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
General A. Yields back. Any other members seek recognition to speak on the amendment? If not, I'll yep. Miss Kami was recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 25
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a question for the amendment offered. Do you have a price tag on this?
Speaker 22
Well, actually, I don't. I mean, I think this will end up saving taxpayers money because we haven't done the update in decades. So if we're not having to provide financial assistance continuing on acreage that isn't planted right now. My cases that I'm making is I think we are providing financial assistance to farmers that are not planting on the acreage that they're getting the financial assistance for. So I think we would come out, this would come out as a benefit to taxpayers if we did an update on what is the actual acreage that farmers are actually planting on.
Speaker 22
Well, my point is if you if it's voluntary, are farmers really gonna be, you know, I think it has to be mandatory so that we get a real accurate description and understanding of what the acreage is that is being farmed. If it's just up to a farmer to decide whether they're going to report the acreage that they're planted or not, I just don't think that we're going to get a real accurate read. And that's why a mandatory base acre update, I think, is necessary. And we haven't done it in decades.
Speaker 25
But I do believe in previous cost estimates, it was exceptionally expensive. But that's why we went with a voluntary. But I yield, mister chairman. Thank you.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won't take up the whole five minutes, but I'm opposed to this amendment. Every farmer I know wants a voluntary base acre update, not a mandatory base acre update. And I hope you'll listen to what the author of the amendment said, that they think there's a problem if it's up to the farmer to decide. And I don't know any farmer in favor of a mandatory base acre update.
I know a lot of farmers in favor of a voluntary base acre mandate, and I think that we should support the farmers in their position on this. With that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields back. Any other members seek recognition? Mister Crawford is recognized.
Speaker 7
Yeah. I think that when you start mandating things, thank you, mister chairman. Anytime you start mandating things, farmers reflexively resist, and that's for a good reason. What we've seen, for example, is a mandatory livestock ID program. When you were able to demonstrate market value for premise registration and they could actually benefit from it at the market by a gain of $25.30, 40¢ a pound, then you started seeing premise registration taking place because there was a market demand for it.
That's when you got accountability and you took that extra step in record keeping and so on because the market would actually reward you for it. So if we could find some way to reward farmers for updating base acres on a regular basis, find a way to do it, I think then you'd see an uptake that would address your concern. But when you mandate it, the nature of farmers is to reflexively say, no. Thank you. And I think that's what we're gonna run into this time around.
That's why I oppose that amendment.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields back. Any other members seek recognition? If not, I'll take liberty of my time. I'd like to thank the general lady for raising this issue before the committee. You know, I know there are some areas of the country that would benefit from a full base update, but I also had to be mindful of those who stand to lose significantly from a mandatory base update.
Under the base acre provision of HR one, this committee carefully threaded the needle to help significantly expand the safety net without penalizing producers who've availed themselves of the planting flexibility that's been a hallmark of title one since the 1996 farm bill. As I understand, secretary Rollins, the folks at USDA have already begun working to roll out these additional 30,000,000 base acres that we added as a part of HR one agriculture title, to give beginning farmers and underbased producers access to the farm safety net. So this committee's worked diligently to find a solution on base acres that is a net gain for all producers. And for that reason, unfortunately, I'll be opposing this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. Any other members, seek recognition?
Missus Takur is recognized.
Speaker 20
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise to express my strong support for this amendment. This is gonna help a lot of our farmers. And at this time, I'd like to yield my time to Representative Buzinski.
Speaker 22
Thank you. I just wanted to add there are Midwestern farmers that would definitely benefit from a mandatory base acre update. So to say that there aren't any farmers who would benefit, I just want to make it clear. The farmers that I represent definitely would. I understand southern farmers, which I, you know, I know the members that spoke up in opposition to a mandatory base acre update.
Southern farmers might see opposition to this. But when you look at reference prices, one of the things I've consistently said on this committee is to make sure that a farm bill is geographically balanced, that it weighs the, you know, the pains and the frustrations of Midwestern farmers with the same pains and frustration as Southern farmers, and doesn't give our Southern farmers an unfair advantage if it relates to reference prices or base acreage. And I think just asking for a system that we've been based on that's decades old, asking farmers to do that update and making it mandatory so that we get a real full picture of what's being planted, I think is a fair request. But I'll yield back.
Speaker 1
You'll be back. Other members seek recognition to speak on this amendment. Alright. Hearing no further conversation, the question is on the amendment. All those.
Speaker 1
General lady withdraws the amendment. Thank you, General Lady. Now I understand, Mister Carbojal, you have an amendment at the desk under.
Speaker 1
Without, I think that the amendment has been distributed. Everyone's, what's that? Carbajal's. Thank.
Speaker 1
So without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. I now recognize the distinguished gentleman that sponsored the amendment for up to five minutes for an explanation of the amendment.
Speaker 46
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Each year, states across the nation experience natural disasters resulting in substantial damage to farms and agricultural lands. In 2023, farms in my district alone experienced over $200,000,000 in losses due to storms. I'm sure each of you can relate, and I've seen losses in your districts at some point as well. Even withstanding USDA disaster programs and safety net offerings, many producers are still left with uncovered losses.
Speaker 46
From natural disasters like hurricanes, floods, droughts, tornadoes, and wildfires. In 2024, 47 states experienced natural disasters with uncovered losses totaling over $9,300,000,000. In 2023, all states except Alaska experienced natural disasters with uncovered agriculture losses totaling up to $10,000,000,000. That same year is when California producers experienced unprecedented weather events. Early year storms lasted into March, bringing multiple atmospheric rivers, intense rainfall, and subsequent flooding.
The subsequent months of August and September saw severe impacts to the state from Hurricane Hillary. All told, it is estimated that my home state was hit with a staggering $2.4 billion in agricultural damages and losses. At the 2024, we supported a proposed bipartisan supplemental package that included $21,000,000,000 in natural disaster assistance to producers. The package also included a pilot to allow some funds to flow from the USDA to states via a block grant mechanism. This authority has largely been replicated in section 1004 of this bill.
Last year, using this authority, USDA issued general block grants and provided roughly $1,000,000,000 in ad hoc disaster funding to select states, with those states in turn aiding producers. Despite the $21,000,000,000 in assistance for several disaster types, such as tornadoes, fires, flooding, and drought. The general block grants USDA chose to implement only provided funds to states that experienced uncovered losses due to hurricanes, with all other disaster types being deemed ineligible. To date, roughly $1,000,000,000 in general block grant funding taken from the general funds allocated by Congress to all producers has gone to only six states. Eligibility criteria and data requirements for the states were not made public before the USDA began accepting grant applications, nor have the finalized block grant awards to these select states been made publicly available.
The $1,000,000,000 awarded to these handful of states provides money to producers in those states for losses that existing federal programs do not cover, allowing them to receive money on top of other federal disaster assistance. All of this ultimately creates questions about equity for impacted producers in other states. As we are all aware, Congress has created many state block grant programs across multiple agencies and jurisdictions. To my understanding, in every case where block grants are created, Congress establishes a framework for the program to ensure states receive funds in an equitable manner and administer such funds in compliance with federal requirements. Mister chairman, should we intend to give USDA new block grant authority to address natural disasters, we must practice good governance and lay out a framework here as well.
That is why my amendment would ensure continued accountability for any federal tax dollars given to the state governments. It would also require transparency both in the USDA process of determining state and disaster eligibility, and how states would administer awarded funds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentleman. I recognize the speaker on the amendment, Mister Crawford, for five minutes. Okay. Recognize mister Costa for five minutes.
Speaker 6
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I wanna speak on behalf of this amendment that our colleague is offering. I think that it's not just California, but all of our states are challenged with the unpredictability of the weather. You know, farmers can be ranchers, dairymen, women the best, but, you know, you pray for rain. It doesn't always come when you want.
And then oftentimes, you have other kinds of natural disasters that affect it, whether they be hurricanes or tornadoes or other factors, that devastate regions of our districts and our states. And, therefore, I think this amendment has good merit. I think it provides an effort to compensate those who are devastated by the impact. And, I support the amendment, and I think it's something that, clearly, we need to have more tools in our management toolbox to deal with the devastation that weather events cause, regardless of where we farm. So I support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. Thanks, gentlemen. I recognize Miss Ross and Scott for five minutes to speak on the amendment.
Speaker 5
Thank you, chairman. And, I say this respectfully to with my good friend Salude who I've traveled the world with, especially Africa, places that actually benefit a lot from RUTF and other programs. My district has been hit by disasters going from hurricane Michael, Idaho. I mean, we have had hurricane after hurricane in our district. And I would just suggest to my colleague, the reason I'm opposing this amendment is because the better place to write this is in the actual disaster bill.
And that is what we've been doing: when we have a disaster, we've actually been writing those parameters in that bill. And if you put this in this farm bill, you're gonna lose your opportunity, I believe. At least you're gonna require additional agreements to get additional changes into this act, into the disaster bill, so I just suggest that the better place for this type of language is in the actual disaster bill after we see what the damage is. And we go to pass that disaster bill on the floor of the house of representatives. With that, mister chairman, I oppose the amendment for that reason, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields back. Now recognize the ranking member for five minutes.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman. I wanna start by saying thank you to Mr. Carbajal for bringing up this amendment. As we all know, block grants can be used as incredibly effective and useful tools for delivering assistance to producers, especially for crops that don't benefit from the established USDA Farm Safety Net programs. Holds. Of course, as we've seen in the actions of this administration, it's easy to use block grants to pick winners and losers among those who could receive assistance.
This amendment will help establish uniformity, transparency, and accountability in these block grants, so they don't simply become a blank check for states to use recklessly or inappropriately. Again, I just wanna say, Mister Carbajal, I think this is an excellent amendment. And at this point, anyone? Okay. Yield back to the chairman.
Speaker 1
Kelly yields back. Any other members seek recognition to speak on Ms. Carbajal's amendment? If not, I'll take the liberty of providing my time. I wanna thank the gentleman for his amendment. The ability to streamline the block grant negotiation process remains a top priority.
It's critical that we're able to provide states with as much discretion as possible to negotiate these block grants in a way that best suits their needs. Now I have some concerns about removing some discretion from the ability of the secretary and states to negotiate terms around block grants that could hinder their ability to respond to unique challenges or disasters that they may not be able to contemplate as we sit here today. So I oppose the amendment, but would appreciate your opportunity to keep working with Mister Carvajal as this process moves forward to ensure that we are appropriately balancing the interests of all the stakeholders. And I yield back my time. Anyone else seek recognition?
If not,
Speaker 46
There are no more speakers. I would like to withdraw my amendment, and hope that we might discuss opportunities to address these issues in the future. I appreciate my colleague, Mr. Scott's, constructive feedback, and I'm hoping we will continue to work on this issue.
Speaker 1
Well, mister Carvalho, my promise, we'll do that. Look forward to it. Very good. We're gonna move on. I understand that Missus Takuda from Hawaii has an amendment under Title One.
Speaker 1
Okay. Very good. So if not, recognize Mister Crawford has an amendment at the desk.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Have an amendment on the desk. We'd like to call up amendment number 137.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Now recognize the distinguished gentleman to sponsor the amendment for up to five minutes for an explanation of the amendment.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I wanna thank you and your staff for working so hard with me on this joint priority. I'm glad we both understand that advanced partial PLC and ARC payments are a necessary policy change, understanding the importance of keeping this bill cost neutral. And since CBO unfortunately scored the provision, I do intend to withdraw my amendment, but I think it's important that we have a little bit of a conversation about it first. So, I also would like to pursue this maybe in some other avenues.
This is only one half of my bill, the Bridge the Gap for Rural Communities Act. The other half suspends payment limitation for crop year 2025, recognizing that securing our nation's food supply means tying the farm safety net to the acres of our family farmers cultivated, instead of subjecting them to arbitrary cutoffs that add another squeeze to producers who can't afford another squeeze. But getting back to the amendment in front of us, this amendment simply gives farmers the option to receive 50% of the projected PLC or ARC payments several months early in the years the secretary projects a payment will be triggered. This will help farmers with cash flow issues, which right now are pretty much everyone, and allow producers to save on interest expense. To be clear, this is not a novel or revolutionary idea.
It was actually part of the predecessor program to PLC, and in the 2008 Farm Bill, Democrats decided to play political games and gutted advanced partial payments to be used as a budget gimmick. That has put farmers in a situation where PLC and ARC payments are paid in full a full year after harvest. And let's just pause and think about how ludicrous that is. Why in the world are payments coming out a year after the crop they're meant to be a protection tool for? And let's remember payments are only triggered in years when farmers are losing money on a crop, so we're already hurting farmers in years they're down.
It's far past time we correct this issue created by the Democrats a decade and a half ago. We're facing an existential crisis in agriculture, and I understand this is not a silver bullet, but is a simple way to align policy to help farmers when they need it most and bolster our nation's food security. Mister chairman, if,
Speaker 1
On your commitment to continue working with me and advance this policy, I'd be happy to withdraw this amendment. I wanna thank the gentleman for bringing forth an amendment. It, as well as his diligence in working towards improving certainty and cash flow for producers. I, you know, I believe the provision has merit. In fact, it's something we've been working on together for months.
Unfortunately, with the updated February baseline, the congressional budget office has changed their methodology in scoring provisions that interact with the commodity credit corporation. Now what should have been budget-neutral will cost billions. And so, you know, I commend Miss Crawford for his efforts to move the payments for farm program payments. This effort should write to ship the, after, House Democrats arbitrarily in the past used Title One payments, timing to pay for nutrition spending in '2 in the 2008 farm bill. So we're not able to include this amendment this time due to budgetary constraints, but look, forward to working together with the gentleman to get this cross finish line.
Speaker 1
The gentleman from North Carolina, Mister Rouser, the clerk will report the title of the amendment.
Speaker 48
It's number 1 32. Amendment number 132 offered by mister Rauser of North Carolina.
Speaker 1
We now recognize distinguished gentleman from North Carolina to sponsor the amendment for up to five minutes for an explanation of their amendment.
Speaker 9
I thank the chairman. The amendment would simply restore tobacco as an original, pardon me. As an agriculture commodity under the Commodity Credit Corporation charter. Let me give you a little history on this, on why this is the case. And this goes back to a previous life of mine. I think maybe only Frank Lucas and David Scott were here at this time.
But in 2004, when the tobacco quota buyout was negotiated, there was some concern that there might be an effort later on to reconstitute a tobacco program. And so we excluded tobacco from the CCC charter for that reason. But the purpose, again, was the purpose of the language was to prevent any reconstitution of the program. It was not to prevent access to ad hoc disaster assistance or ad hoc economic assistance. And I should add this change ensures that tobacco farmers are not excluded from assistance, but it does not ensure that they get any assistance.
So, really, this is a technical correction, with regard to the original intent of the negotiation back in 2004. As it works now, when Congress passes a disaster package, tobacco is included. But if the administration proactively issues payments to farmers, and it's coming from the CCC, then tobacco is excluded. So this corrects that wrong, and it's very much a technical change. CBO scores at budget neutral, zero.
It is not retroactive, only prospective.
Speaker 1
I yield back. Gentleman yields. Any other members seek recognition to speak on this amendment, mister Davis?
Speaker 32
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. As the congressional district that produces more tobacco in this nation. I do want to speak on this and thank the gentleman from North Carolina, my colleague, for bringing this forward. And I believe that this will go a long way in helping given an opportunity for tobacco farmers. And I can tell you I've spoken to so many along the way.
And anything we can do up here that just makes sense to help this population, this group of farmers that are doing what they can to, again, make ends meet. Grateful for that. So thank you for that. I am supporting this, and I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. Yields back. Now recognize the ranking member for 5 minutes.
Speaker 2
Well, thank you so much, Rouser and Mr. Davis. I just would remind my colleagues that in 2004, Congress passed on a bipartisan basis the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act. That legislation ended federal support for tobacco in our country in exchange for making payments of almost $10,000,000,000 to our nation's tobacco farmers. Unfortunately, I have to say that this amendment would undo the provisions of that act in limiting the use of CCC dollars to support tobacco. If this amendment is adopted, it would restart the government's ability to use taxpayer dollars to promote the domestic consumption of tobacco and the marketing of tobacco as well.
To me, that seems very inconsistent with the Make America Healthy Again agenda. And, of course, the past is littered with examples of the government buying surplus tobacco from farmers and ending up having to dispose of it. So, again, I appreciate my colleagues, in the situation they're in their states, but I do, I believe this amendment just doesn't meet the reality of where Americans are with regard to tobacco and public health. So I urge members to vote no.
Speaker 1
Thank you, General Latey. Any other members seek recognition to speak on mister Rauser's amendment? If not, I'll take the liberty of my five minutes. I think both of the gentlemen from North Carolina for their commitment to finding a solution on this issue. The ability of tobacco to be eligible for CCC funding has been heavily debated.
But now that we are over two decades past the origin of prohibition, tobacco growers have missed out on critical assistance while other commodities receive support. I think it's time to put tobacco on a fair and equal footing with each other and, with other commodities, and I support this amendment. And, if no other members seek recognition, hearing no further conversation, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Aye.
All those opposed, say no. No. The opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. And that is, do any other members have amendments under title one? Give you two chances.
Any other members have amendments under title one? Hearing none, title one is now closed. Are there any amendments to Title Two?
Speaker 1
Mister Vasquez is recognized. Miss Vasquez has an amendment at the desk.
Speaker 26
Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk, amendment number 122. I'm proud to offer this amendment, which would strengthen.
Speaker 26
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm proud to offer this amendment to strengthen wildlife habitat connectivity in our federal conservation programs, while also maintaining the flexibility and voluntary nature that producers rely on. In New Mexico, we know that agriculture and wildlife go hand in hand. Ranchers and farmers provide us with quality wildlife habitat across the country, and they can do even more. They themselves depend on healthy land, healthy water, and healthy ecosystems, and they wanna protect those valuable resources onto the next generation.
Across the West, we're seeing increased drought, catastrophic wildfires, and pressure on open space. At the same time, big game species like elk, mule deer, and pronghorn depend on seasonal migration corridors that are in the path of working lands. When those corridors are fragmented, we see impacts not only on wildlife populations, but on rural economies that depend on hunting, outdoor recreation, and tourism. And as a hunter myself, I know how important these intact corridors are for wildlife movement. This amendment simply ensures that USDA conservation programs can better support producers' voluntary efforts to restore and enhance wildlife habitat connectivity and migration corridors on their working lands.
Now it does that in a few common-sense ways. First, it formally incorporates wildlife habitat connectivity into the existing conservation definitions so that USDA can more clearly support these practices. Second, my amendment allows cost-share payments for wildlife corridor projects on grasslands with ecological significance that are enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program, with two important caveats. No double payments, and no putting emergency grazing or haying access at risk. Those caveats are explicit.
Now, third, it directs USDA to expand the use of nonstructural tools. Things like virtual fencing, which we're pioneering in my district, paired with strong technical assistance so that producers have flexible, innovative options that work for their day-to-day operations and can improve wildlife habitat like riparian corridors. And let me be clear. This is not a mandate. It is not more red tape.
It is entirely voluntary and producer-driven, meeting producers where they are. This approach reflects the spirit of the Habitat Connectivity on Working Lands framework, supporting producers who want to be part of the solution while respecting private property rights and operational realities. In a farm bill that should be about resilience, resilience for producers, for rural communities, and for our natural resources, this amendment strengthens the conservation title in a practical, bipartisan way. It supports working lands, it supports wildlife, it supports farmers and ranchers, and it supports rural economies. I urge my colleague to support the amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentleman. I'll recognize myself for 5 minutes. I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for offering this amendment. Supporting wildlife and habitat have long been the goals and purposes of many of our conservation programs, including EQIP, RCPP, and CRP. This amendment includes several provisions that will further incorporate wildlife corridors into the program to better support those purposes, and improve wildlife habitat.
I appreciate the gentleman offering this amendment today and support its inclusion, and I yield back. Any other members wish to speak? The ranking member is recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanna thank Mister Vasquez for introducing this amendment, and I fully support several components of this bill. Conservation programs should be developed with an eye toward restoring wildlife habitat and habitat connectivity. I agree that CRP grasslands payments are too low, and I would support efforts to increase those payments. I do have concerns about allowing producers enrolled in CRP grasslands to access the already oversubscribed EQIP and CSP dollars.
So, again, I think we're probably here because we didn't have a normal, five-year, 12-title farm bill negotiation and process. But, mister Vasquez, I appreciate your efforts, and I don't have a recommendation on this and would just urge folks to vote their districts.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Having been around for the birth of the Grasslands Reserve Program, it served many purposes to put property that in some cases had been set aside in CRP for 10, 20, 30 years back into some sort of productive use, and that's been very successful. I congratulate my colleague for being very thoughtful about how he's attempting to approach this. And I would agree with you, Mr.
Chairman. I think we should accept our friend's language and continue to work on this. If the gentleman yields? I would yield to the chairman on any occasion.
Speaker 1
And the question of, you know, conservation being stressed, we have, you know, this committee has added 24% to the conservation baseline, and EQIP was specifically mentioned. That has increased by 54%. And so I think we're in a position, you know, to use these types of innovations, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Any other members seek recognition to speak on the gentleman from New Mexico's amendment? Okay. Here we go. Let me find, hearing no further conversation, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor of the amendment is signified by saying aye.
Aye. All those opposed are saying no. Can you pin the chair? The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. Mister chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Mister Costa has an amendment at the desk. I believe amendment number 61. Yes. The clerk will report the title of the amendment.
Speaker 1
Mister, without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Now recognized, distinguished gentleman from California, the sponsor of the amendment, for up to five minutes for an explanation of their amendment.
Speaker 6
Again, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And it won't take five minutes, but it's a nice follow-up on the previous amendment that we just heard because it also reflects the efforts that I think many of us are engaged in with the Conservation Reserve Program. Improvement of Flexibility Act, this amendment is a bipartisan and bicameral proposal that would make the program more accessible and effective to landowners while strengthening outcomes, we think, for wildlife, soil, and water. I'd like to thank representatives Finstra, Johnson, and Davis for supporting this proposal, in addition to majority leader Thun, ranking member Klobuchar, and senators Moran, Smith for leading the senate companion measure in the past. This amendment makes critical needed improvements to CRP and includes codifying state acres of wildlife enhancement program, modernizing the payment limit from 50,000 to 125,000, which, by the way, has not been updated since 1985.
And it also improves access to grazing on CRP lands through providing cost-share for grazing infrastructure, while allowing greater flexibility for producers in times of drought or emergencies. The bill reflects carefully the agreement between wildlife and ranching groups to provide more hay and grazing flexibility during times of emergency while balancing the protections of wildlife. I look forward to continuing to work with the committee on this issue and further discussion on the modifications, and certainly would entertain the pleasure of the committee.
Speaker 27
Yes. I am proud to be an original cosponsor with Mister Costa of the Conservation Reserve Program and Flexibility Act. Mister Costa did mention raising that CRP cap from 50,000 to $12,050,000 dollars. I think that's critically important. I think the additional flexibility in this program also makes a lot of sense, though.
South Dakota's 2,700,000 acres of CRP. We're the pheasant capital of the world. Hopefully, you all realize that. And CRP is just a critically important habitat, water quality, and soil health program. This bill moves us even further in the right direction of providing that critically important flexibility for the grassland CRP.
This is the right move, and I thank mister Costa for bringing it forward. With that, I yield.
Speaker 16
Thank you, chairman. This amendment would make important improvements to the Conservation Reserve Program, or CRP, based on some bipartisan legislation, as we've heard from my colleagues already. And these improvements are aimed at making the program more accessible for farmers and ranchers, while improving outcomes for soil, water, and wildlife. The amendment would also improve access to grazing on CRP lands through providing cost-share for grazing infrastructure. This is important for the development of sustainable livestock operations and preventing land from cycling through CRP back into row crop production before facing declining production, and ultimately reenrollment.
Encouraging science-backed conservation practices strengthens the long-term health of our land. Grasslands are absolutely a key part of the Kansas landscape, making up over 15,000,000 acres of our state's agricultural land. These grasslands are a key part of the cattle ranching sector and also provide critical environmental benefits, including protecting water quality, providing wildlife habitat, and preventing erosion. These improvements to CRP would benefit ranchers and strengthen grassland conservation. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 19
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanna thank Congressman Costa for his continued support in partnership with strengthening the voluntary conservation program that works for our farmers, ranchers, and our rural communities. The legislation we worked on together reflects a bipartisan commitment to improving CRP by improving access to hay, grazing, helping to provide our farmers and ranchers with tools to conserve and improve soil health and water quality. I strongly support these goals. However, I understand the Farm Bill has been carefully crafted and negotiated balance of commodities in this area.
So I just look forward to working with cost as we move forward, and, hopefully, we can get something authorized outside this package where we can give this focus and legitimate attention as we move forward. So thank you, Mr. Costa. Yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yield back. I'm gonna take the liberty to recognize myself for five minutes, and yield to the sponsor of this amendment. Mr. Costa.
Speaker 6
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And as I noted, it has, as we've seen, I think, good bipartisan support. And I would take the direction of the chair at this point that maybe we work on this assuming this measure continues to move on because the Senate, I believe, is gonna have an effort in the same area when you see the Senate support that is there. And I just believe that as we've all discussed here, it's long overdue that we update this. And I think this is the appropriate vehicle, this and the companion bill in the senate, and I think we ought to figure out some way to make that happen.
So, gentlemen, withdraw us? I'll withdraw it, for the sake of continuing bipartisanship. Absolutely.
Speaker 1
I'll reclaim my time. You know, unfortunately, legislation is not able to include in, well, there are several sections of this amendment that are similar to the language included in the 2024 Farm Bill to modernize CRP. And, unfortunately, today's legislation is not able to include the previous attempt to modernize CRP due to the updated CBO score of these provisions against the new baseline. And with that, you know, we in the house have an obligation to remain budget neutral. So I appreciate withdrawing the amendment so that we can continue to work on this going forward and find a pathway.
Speaker 1
And Vince that. I'm looking over your shoulder. Yeah. Mister Vince, that has an amendment at the desk.
Speaker 23
And, mister chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. It's amendment number 18.
Speaker 1
Very good. I now, without objection, the amendment will be considered read. I now recognize the distinguished gentleman, the sponsor of the amendment, up to five minutes for an explanation of his amendment.
Speaker 23
Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the previous conversation. So this amendment is essentially an amendment that would modernize the CRP program. I'd like to call it CRP 2.0. What does the next 30 years of CRP look like? You know, we've had this great collision of science, technology, and agriculture.
And we have better tools available to us now than we did at the onset of CRP in 1985. I'm old enough to remember on our farm it was called set aside, and it was a supply, really a supply control issue in regards to the commodities. And so as that over time grew into a program where I feel like over the last years, we've really been chasing acres and dollars, and that's what this conversation in Congress has been about, is chasing acres and dollars. And so as I've talked to farmers back in my district and all across the country, specifically with young and beginning farmers, I hear a lot of talk about the competition for rental rates and highly productive land, where they feel like they're competing directly with the federal government because the most productive land in their backyard gets tied up as a retirement plan and a CRP contract, and they essentially then are competing dollar for dollar with the federal government. So it's high time, I think, that we have this conversation.
I'm encouraged to hear congressman Costa's approach and the bipartisan support for having a conversation about CRP 2.0. What does it look like to modernize this program? I am keenly aware that this comes with the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain, CBO score. That's hard to completely understand, but I do know that this comes with a price tag, and I understand the chairman's wishes. And I would really just ask the chairman to continue to work with me and others on this committee to have a thoughtful conversation about the next twenty, thirty years of what CRP needs to look like in our country, taking into account the awesome opportunities that it provides for our sport, our sportsmen and women, our landowners, farmers, but also making sure that we're embracing all of the technologies that we have at our disposal, that we didn't have in 1985 when this program was established.
So I appreciate you hearing me out. Know we've just had this conversation. So, mister chairman, I will, if you commit to continue to work as you did with congressman Costa, I would then be willing to withdraw this amendment.
Speaker 1
Well, gentlemen, I withdraw my commitment to work with both of you. CRP, I believe, is the oldest conservation program. It's never been modernized. It was a.
Speaker 1
It was a huge goal of mine to be able to get that done until we got this most recent CBO score. It's just I would I wouldn't give CBO the credit of the wizard.
Speaker 1
Up with their numbers, but I definitely will continue to work with both of you because this is something that we need to get done. So I thank the gentleman. Any other members? Mister Johnson has an amendment at the desk.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. I now recognize the distinguished gentleman, the sponsor of the amendment, for up to five minutes for an explanation of their amendment.
Speaker 27
This is not gonna be an offer and a withdraw. This is something I'm asking my colleagues to agree with. So you can have fencing, either conventional fencing or virtual fencing, which is becoming increasingly popular out in the country. You have a disaster come around, knocks down that fencing. The emergency conservation program can provide funding to replace the fencing.
But under the old school rules, if you've got conventional fencing, you can only get conventional fencing. And if you've got virtual fencing, you can only get virtual fencing. This would allow flexibility for the producer to decide if they want to take this opportunity to convert from conventional fencing to virtual fencing, or the other way. In some instances, it can make sense to go the other way at no additional cost to the program.
Speaker 27
So this is additional flexibility, no additional cost. I would submit myself to questions, sir, but would urge a yes vote on this common sense amendment.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, Yields, any members seek recognition to speak on Mister Johnson's amendment. This figure is recognized. Mister Johnson, just.
Speaker 34
I'm asking for a friend. Can you explain the concept of virtual fencing?
Speaker 27
So, thank you. You can tell your friend that most Americans would be more familiar with this in their neighborhood with dogs. Right? And that they would have a fence that you can't see, but that still provides a clear incentive to the animal not to cross the line. This is increasingly being used, virtual fencing out in the field.
It's nowhere near as popular as conventional fencing, but for some producers, it really works well.
Speaker 1
Alright. If not, I'll claim my time. I thank the gentleman from South Dakota for offering an amendment. Given the many natural disasters we've seen in recent years, ECP remains a critical program for many producers. And this amendment will encourage more flexibility in the program and make it easier to respond to natural disasters such as wildfires.
One goal of mine with this farm bill is to further incorporate science, technology, and innovation into conservation programs. So new technology such as virtual fencing is a cost effective and efficient way to respond to these disasters. With that, I fully support this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Any other members seek recognition to speak on amendment number 10? Alright.
Seeing none, no other conversation. All those in favor of amendment number 10, Miss Johnson's amendment, signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed are saying no. No.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. Okay. Miss Buzinski is recognized. You have missed an amendment at the desk?
Speaker 22
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Have an amendment at the desk, amendment number 54.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. I now recognize the distinguished gentlelady that sponsored the amendment for up to five minutes for an explanation of the amendment.
Speaker 22
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment would strike the rescission of over $1,000,000,000 from the environmental quality incentives program, also referred to as EQIP. Let's start with the facts. When Republicans advanced their reconciliation package, one of the few positive items within this committee's jurisdiction was moving the Inflation Reduction Act conservation funding into the Farm Bill baseline. That decision increased long-term funding for programs like EQIP and gave producers more certainty as they plan multiyear investments.
I opposed removing the Climate Smart guardrails tied to that funding. I believe those guardrails ensured accountability and measurable outcomes. But ultimately, those requirements were removed, and farmers were told conservation funding would now be stable and predictable. And yet this bill rescinds over 1 billion dollars for EQIP, USDA's most oversubscribed conservation program. In fiscal year 2024, fewer than one in four Illinois EQIP projects were funded, and Illinois ranked nearly last nationally, 50 out of 51 in increases from fiscal year 2023.
These projects are real investments that lower input costs, protect soil health, improve water quality, and strengthen long term productivity. They help farmers in my district manage risk in an era of volatile markets, and stay competitive when margins are tight. And now we are pulling more than $1,000,000,000 out of it. Roughly $420,000,000 of that rescission is redirected to other programs. If the majority wants to increase funding for these programs, they can make that case.
But $420,000,000 is nowhere near a billion dollars. The rest appears to be used to help balance the other administrative costs in the bill. If we are moving resources out of the most oversubscribed conservation program at the USDA, producers deserve a clear explanation of the trade-offs, especially since some of the programs being funded with EQIP money, like feral swine eradication, only benefit specific regions and not the entire country. Conservation funding is not a slush fund. It's not a reserve account to be offset to offset unrelated policy changes.
It is a long-term commitment to working lands and the producers who steward them. Without this amendment, Illinois producers are expected to receive nearly a $20,000,000 cut in conservation payments. EQIP helps them reduce risk. It helps them lower input costs. It helps them build resilience in a volatile farm economy.
If the majority believes other priorities deserve funding, then be honest enough to acknowledge that these choices carry a cost, and allow this farm bill to reflect that cost. Cost. But do not quietly remove more than a billion dollars from the most popular conservation program in the country, especially after telling producers that the conservation funding was secure. I urge the adoption of this amendment. I yield back.
Speaker 6
Thank you very much. Mister chairman, members of the committee, I think this is a very good amendment. And suspect all of us have experiences within our own districts where EQIP has really performed well. I can tell you over the decades in California, it has been perhaps one of the most popular and successful programs in California agriculture. It's been used to match state funding for multiple beneficial uses in conservation.
And to see the cuts in the EQIP program, and to see our colleagues' efforts to try to respond to that, I think, is worthwhile. And I would wholeheartedly urge all of us to support her efforts in this measure because it is just common sense. But as my mother used to say, she didn't know why they called it common sense. It didn't seem to be all that common. So, therefore, I add my support to this amendment and hope that we will, on a bipartisan basis, support it.
Speaker 1
Yeah. Any other Republicans seek recognition? Not Mr. Takudas recognized.
Speaker 20
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanna thank my colleague from Illinois for introducing this measure. I rise in support of this amendment and to oppose a shortsighted and self-defeating cut to one of the most successful conservation programs in the Farm Bill. Equip is one of the most trusted tools farmers rely on to care for their land while keeping their operations viable. At a time when unpredictable weather, rising input costs, and market instability are squeezing family farms, Congress should be strengthening programs like EQIP to help them stay resilient and profitable.
Instead, this bill, as we've heard, will strip more than $1,000,000,000 from this critical program. That's not trimming around the edges. That's pulling the rug out from under farmers who are trying to do the right thing for their land and their bottom line. Over a five-year farm bill period, this represents about $6,400,000 in cuts to Hawaii farmers in my district. The Inflation Reduction Act's historic investment in conservation programs like EQIP was supposed to be a promise to farmers.
You step up, we'll have your back. Yet last year, the denial or delay of $2,000,000,000 in conservation funding through the IRA, including roughly $1,400,000,000 specifically for EQIPP, left over 30,000 farmers across the country, farmers and ranchers clutching onto receipts with no assurances that the USDA would live up to its word. That's not giving farmers a hand. It's a slap in the face. We already know that EQIP is oversubscribed.
In a typical year, less than half of farmers with strong, high-value conservation projects actually receive funding. According to expert testimony before this committee, EQIP received more than 134,000 applications nationwide in fiscal year 2023, but only about 34,000 contracts were awarded. That's roughly a 25% acceptance rate. In some states, fewer than 20% of applicants were actually funded. Farmers are lining up to participate, and we are turning them away.
And in fiscal year 2021, 26% of total applicants for EQIP were deemed to be valid, but were not funded, with the highest concentration of these applications in Mississippi, Arkansas, and Texas. These are farmers who did everything right. They applied. They qualified. There just simply wasn't enough funding to meet the demand.
Rescinding over $1,000,000,000 from EQIP makes it harder for farmers to access reliable revenue streams and invest in responsible land stewardship. It delays conservation projects, weakens resilience, and ultimately costs more in the long run. Furthermore, these cuts both ignore the data and the testimony we've already heard in this very committee. During our June 2025 conservation hearing, we heard from experts representing farmers, ranchers, and conservation organizations who emphasized that working lands programs like EQIP are economic drivers. We heard that EQIPP's popularity has caused demand to consistently outpace the funding.
We heard that when technical assistance is under-resourced, producers face rigid guidelines and barriers to entry that discourage participation. We heard that ranchers often dig into their own pockets to make conservation improvements rather than wait for help that may never come. In other words, we have already heard from experts who support EQIPP and who would almost certainly oppose cutting it by over $1,000,000,000. And let's be honest, cutting funding is one thing. But what happens when there aren't enough boots on the ground to administer the program?
Since the beginning of this administration, 22% of NRCS staff have separated from the department. In Hawaii, we're down at least 22 NRCS employees since the beginning of 2024. Some field offices have had to shorten their hours or close their doors entirely. That means farmers are left without on-island technical assistance and without the trusted partners who walk the fields, help them design conservation plans, and guide them through the process. If we truly value our farmers, if we value local food production, climate resilience, responsible stewardship, then we should be investing in EQIP, not dismantling it piece by piece.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this very important amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields back. Recognized gentleman from Oklahoma for 5 minutes.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Nobody on this committee has worked longer and harder on the conservation programs down through the years. And nobody's been more focused on EQIP and all of the other tools that preserve our water, our air, our soil, our wildlife, and our productivity of farms. The argument about this being a cut, I think, in fact, in the way the 1974 Budget Act works, in fact, in the way we've had to do things, what we're going through here today is the way to preserve the baseline for EQIP and to preserve all these other programs. Some of my colleagues alluded to the fact that feral swine eradication is an issue in a particular area.
Well, it's much of the country, it is a particular area. We have to do these things in a way that we maintain the funding base for the overall programs, and we maintain all of the various options out there. So I respectfully say, I suggest that we reject this amendment, that we continue to work forward. And our goal as members of this committee should be more funding in general towards EQIP and all of the conservation programs. There'll never be enough.
In the 2002 Farm Bill, when I was subcommittee chairman, we had in the range of $11,000,000,000 in back request, conservation program request. We were able to fund the program of 14,000,000,000. Guess what happened? As soon as people found out resources were available, we were instantly oversubscribed. Why is that?
Farmers, ranchers are some of the best conservationists in the history of the world. They want to take care of the property they're stewards of. They want to use these programs. So I just suggest to my colleagues, let's pass on this amendment. Let's continue to work forward, and we'll all get there together.
And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, y'all's back, and Congresswoman Brown's recognized. Five minutes.
Speaker 14
Thank you very much. One of the less ugly components of the big ugly bill was keeping the increased funding for conservation programs that help farmers keep their soil healthy. Those funds were originally provided by the Inflation Reduction Act, with a focus on fighting climate change and supporting agriculture. As a result of IRA dollars, EQIP application acceptance rates increased by more than 50%, and eight states were even able to tackle the backlog of deferred applications from prior years. When Republicans passed HR 1, they removed the focus on making sure those dollars flow towards sustainable agriculture practices, but at least the Republicans didn't cut them entirely.
Now Republicans are going back on the promise they made to farmers, pulling the rug out from them and rescinding more than a billion dollars from EQIP to satisfy their own made-up rules for a budget-neutral skinny farm bill. But we don't have to buy into that flawed premise. Congress can and should support EQIP, the most popular of all conservation programs, while also reauthorizing and funding other conservation programs. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and reject 1 billion dollars in cuts to soil health and conservation. And with that, Mister Chairman, I yield to the ranking member.
Speaker 2
Thank you. I just wanna add my support to this amendment. Thank you so much for this. You made a really eloquent argument, and I know that, you know, I was very proud to see those IRA dollars that came into the programs. And just we saw immediately that the application acceptance rates increased by more than 50%.
And eight states were even able to tackle the backlog. So we know that's the right thing to do, and we appreciate it. And I would urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment.
Speaker 38
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support this amendment. Thanks, Nikki, for doing this. This conservation title is just so important, and we have to get it right because we need some practical, common sense solutions that are gonna support our farmers and not hurt them. I will tell you instead, in New York, what we often get is a bunch of ridiculous, out of touch mandates from Manhattan.
Seriously, last year, we had a bunch of New York City politicians who tried to limit the number of cows we could have on our dairy farms, and then they had the audacity to turn around and tell us it's because they think they know best how to care for the environment. Them telling us how to run our dairy farms, be like me going down there, excuse me, and telling them how to run their subways. So as far as I'm concerned, they can keep their hands off our herds. If you step foot on a farm in Upstate New York, talk for one minute to one of our dairy farmers, and then try to tell me you know more about conservation and stewardship than they do. One of the best days I've had, I've been in this job for about a year now, and one of my favorite days of the last year was last August.
I went up to Unadilla for a manure injection field day. The whole community came together to test out the new, state-of-the-art manure injector. Super precise, you know, cuts a slit in the ground, injects the manure, then covers it, makes the soil obviously really healthy with all those nutrients, protects the environment from the runoff, saves the farmers a ton of money that they'd otherwise have to spend on fertilizer. I think it's $40 an acre in savings or something like that. So it's really good for the environment.
It's really good for farmers' bottom lines. But, you know, let's face it. If you're a family farm and you're making $45 a year net income, you're just not gonna be able to invest in this kind of equipment on its own. So I was really glad to see that this farm bill actually includes my bipartisan legislation to prioritize dairy farmers' conservation efforts. I also have to note, my two and a half year old, Matteo, is actually thrilled about this too because he just loves it when we get to talk about the cow poop, whether it's injecting it, putting it in the lagoon.
Sometimes he just likes to stomp in it. If it involves it, he's pretty happy. So, but the problem here is that the farm bill is making these overall cuts that, Nikki and others talked about, to conservation spending. And so I think we've gotta be investing more in these conservation efforts, not less. And I support this amendment.
I'd urge all my colleagues to restore full funding here because, really, these are some of the best investments we can make for upstate dairy farms. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields back. I take the opportunity to speak on the amendment. First of all, let me walk you through some background. The Farm Bill has to remain budget neutral. But, also, though, I have to note that the amendment's not necessary.
Let me walk through exactly what happened with HR one. Through HR one, EQIP was one of several programs that received a significant funding increase through the reinvestment of the conservation dollars provided through the IRA. The 2026 Farm Bill created a new forest conservation easement program, I think many of us support, but had to be paid for, and provides $240,000,000 for it over the five-year life of the bill. Due to the rules of reconciliation, FSAP, forest conservation easement program, could not be created or funded through HR one since it was a new program. However, when HR 1 was passed, additional dollars were added to EQIP to offset the funding needs to pay for FCEP in its first five years.
So additional monies were added to EQIP in order to do that. The limited EQIP funding changes are also necessary to offset the cost of a few other reforms of the conservation title. So, you know, the funding reallocation in title two is limited, but is necessary to fund bipartisan priorities that assist beginning farmers, advance soil health initiatives, protect private forest lands, and fund advancements in conservation technologies. There's, obviously, broad support for those allocations, and this amendment undermines how responsible we are to pay for it. Even with the changes in EQIP provided by the bill, the funding for the program will still be an increase over than what was proposed in the 2024 Farm Bill.
That amount is a 54% increase for EQIP over the January 2025 baseline for the program. I think we all support, hopefully, we all support EQIP and recognize the value of that. I also wanna say, that doesn't take into account a piece of legislation that we passed in President Biden's first December, and that was first year or second year. Don't remember what it was, the Sustains Act. It allows the private sector to invest in these conservation programs.
We created that public-private partnership. That's above and beyond this 54% increase in EQIP. And so under the and nearly 50 conservation groups are supporting that allocation that we did. EQIP will still be receiving historic funding levels since reconciliation, and the program will still reach more than $3,000,000,000 annually by the end of the decade. EQIP, we know, is critically important for producers, and this farm bill protects a long-term investment made into it this year.
So I oppose the amendment, urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield, and I yield back. Seeing no other con, almost said conservation conversation. The
Speaker 1
Recorded vote, well, recorded vote is requested. And it's been, yeah. We'll do a voice one first. Still do a voice first. Yeah.
All those in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye.
Speaker 1
Those opposed are saying no? No. Independent chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to. A recorded vote has been requested.
Yes. Pursuant to committee roll three, I two. Further proceedings on the amendment shall be postponed. Further amendments on title two. Mr. Sorensen.
Speaker 24
Mister chairman, I have an amendment at the desk to offer, amendment number 106.
Speaker 1
Miss Sorensen has an amendment at the desk, the 106. Clerk will report the title of the amendment.
Speaker 1
Just a second here. Let me get the backup. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read and now recognized English gentlemen from Illinois. Sponsor the amendment for up to five minutes for an explanation of their amendment.
Speaker 24
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As mentioned, this evening by members on both sides of the aisle, farmers want markets and better access to tools and data that will strengthen their soils, build resilience to extreme weather events, and improve agricultural productivity. And I think we all can agree on that, because it's not political. But this is real life. Let me take you to my district for just a second because right next to the most fertile fields in the world, lies the Chicago Rockford International Airport.
It is one of the fastest-growing cargo airports in the entire country. Getting sustainable aviation fuel, or SAF, to the airfield will not only support our farmers, but it also powers a growing aviation sector. But we can't just throw up our hands when it comes to innovation. We should be building soil health and sequestering carbon as we move forward. We should be building the soil health.
And when it comes to farmers, a low carbon intensity score should mean a better bottom line. So when our producers adopt the right practices, they will have the competitive edge when it comes to the rewards of a brand-new marketplace. You know, it took a while. We were waiting. But finally, in January, the treasury and the IRS released the proposed rule when it comes to 45Z, the tax credit that will help us develop the SAF market.
But here's the deal. We need to have good, reliable data that helps us figure out the best practices in developing good soil health. Forgive me. I'm gonna use my hands because I'm going back to my meteorology days. My I remember back my slam dunk weather forecast, you know, for 22 years.
They always happened when I had a clear head, but then I also had the best data in front of me. Now I know the farmers in my district. They've got very clear heads, but they need a rush. A rash is a bipartisan, bicameral bill. It is the advancing research on agricultural soil health act that is going to give farmers the data that they need to measure carbon intensity on their own terms.
Because when we measure, monitor, and report what works, we can create the national verification standard that will move us light-years ahead of our competition around the world. America's Heartland is ready to lead the next generation of clean fuel production. It will bring success to Main Street, and it will give growers the value add when it comes to emerging premium markets. Mister chairman, thanks to our friends at the National Weather Service. I look.
There's a 50% chance of rain here in Washington, DC, tomorrow, also 50% chance back in Peoria, Illinois. I hope you can agree with me that we have a 100% chance of getting this across the finish line. I yield back.
Speaker 1
That gentleman yields back. Any other members seek recognition, speak on Mrs. Sorenson's amendment? All right. I will take the liberty to speak on that. I mean, soil health is really important, obviously.
It's about increasing profitability, quality, you know, sustainability. I had the privilege as when I served as the chair of the conservation committee to chair the very first soil health hearing that we ever did in congress. But I have to say it's already a key purpose of most of our conservation programs authorized in Title II, particularly EQIP and CSP. The numerous practices are already available to improve soil health, and soil testing and planning can be supported through the existing programs within the farm bill as drafted. Additionally, to further support those conservation practices, the Farm Bill creates a new state and tribal soil health program within CSP.
Monitoring and evaluation are already included in this new program's list of activities that may improve soil health. And so I also can't support a new authorization of tens of millions of dollars. And so with that, with all that in mind, I oppose this amendment, urge my colleagues to do the same. Mister Chairman. The ranking member is recognized.
Speaker 2
I just wanna speak in favor of this amendment for my colleague, Mr. Sorensen. Of course, the IRA established a soil carbon monitoring network of thousands of locations around the country. And, of course, the amendment would codify that network and make technical improvements to make sure it's collected as consistently and usual, the data. This amendment is also consistent with report language, including in the fiscal year 2026 AG appropriations bill that was supported by many of my Republican colleagues. And so this should be fairly noncontroversial, and I would urge a yes vote from our colleagues.
Speaker 1
And ranked member yields back. Any other members wish to be recognized? Hearing no further conversation, the questions on the amendment? All those in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Aye.
Those opposed by saying no.
Speaker 1
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
Speaker 1
Recorded vote has been requested pursuant to committee rule 3-2. Further proceedings on the amendment shall be postponed. Are there further debates or amendments to title two? Miss. Miss Davids?
Speaker 1
Without objection, the amendment shall be considered read. And I'll recognize the distinguished gentle lady from Kansas, the sponsor of the amendment, for up to five minutes for an explanation of her amendment.
Speaker 16
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm offering this amendment to direct the Natural Resources Conservation Service to conduct a study on the benefits of winter wheat as a cover crop when brought through to harvest, and share their results with this committee. I do plan to withdraw this amendment, but I will share a little bit before I do that. I'm certainly proud to represent the wheat state, and almost one-fifth of all wheat grown in the United States is produced in Kansas. Kansas farmers face unique growing conditions, and winter wheat, when used in a sustainable crop rotation, can offer significant soil health benefits.
It helps control erosion, conserve water, regulate soil temperatures, suppress weeds, and provide rotational benefits to other crops. My amendment calls for a study on the benefits of winter wheat as both a harvestable crop. Promoting this practice would give Kansas farmers more flexibility, support the use of cover cropping, and improve long-term soil health. It's about fairness for Kansas producers and supporting sound agronomic practices. I hope that we can continue working to address this issue and support wheat growers through the remainder of the farm bill process.
Mister chairman, I withdraw my amendment.
Speaker 1
Yeah. I think, quite frankly, you have an excellent amendment and if you choose to withdraw, well, you can, but, certainly, I would support passage of that amendment, the way you've prepared it. But that's entirely up to you.
Speaker 1
Any other members seek, well, we'll let them use their own time. Any other members seek recognition to speak on Miss Davidson?
Speaker 2
I would simply like to add my support for missus David's amendment that she should definitely not withdraw.
Speaker 5
It seems to me that some people have a difficult time taking yes as the answer. Alright.
Speaker 1
Very good. So, let's see. Yeah. I'm getting there. Hold on.
So hearing no further conversation, questions on the amendment? All those in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed are saying no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
Alright.
Speaker 1
I think other members, further debate or seek recognition under title two, conservation? Any other members seek recognition under title two, the conservation title? Alright. Let's see. Hearing none, Title Two is now closed.
Right. Are there any amendments under title three, which is, I believe, the trade title? Oop.
Speaker 1
Got a title too? Alright. Sorry. We were trading. Alright.
We might have a couple of points.
Speaker 1
I'll come up here with Mr. Takuto. I'll do that. One of them. Okay. I'll come.
Speaker 1
Okay. Oh, it's okay. Miss Brown has an amendment at the desk for under title two.
Speaker 14
Okay. This is in, I'm doing this on behalf of Representative Jackson in his absence. Right. And this is for title two, and the purpose is to establish a new subcategory under the agriculture conservation easement program for easements that would support urban agriculture.
Speaker 48
Alright. Amendment number 134 offered by mister Jackson of Illinois, proposed by miss Brown of Ohio.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the amendment shall be considered as read. I now recognize the general aid from Ohio who is stepping in as sponsor of the amendment for up to five minutes for an explanation of the amendment.
Speaker 14
Okay. If again, amendment number 34, I'm going to offer and withdraw. But the purpose of the amendment would be to establish a new subcategory under the agriculture conservation easement program for easements that would support urban agriculture. This category of ASAP would have $20,000,000 per year in mandatory spending, with an additional $20,000,000 per year in discretionary appropriations. In the absence of Mister Jackson, I just wanna thank him for offering up this amendment.
We know that he is spending time with his family, and he is certainly in our thoughts and prayers. We have mentioned multiple times the loss of his father, a living legend, Reverend Jesse Jackson, which is why he can't be here to speak on behalf of this amendment. So it is my honor to do so. Urban agriculture cannot only increase access to local fresh foods for many Americans, but also create healthier urban food systems, and help combat food insecurity. Farmers face unique challenges to accessing farmland in urban and suburban areas, where development can threaten existing urban farms.
That is why I support this amendment to protect urban farmland for food production and conservation by explicitly allowing these lands to be eligible for the agriculture conservation easement program and providing dedicated funding for these urban agriculture land easements. And with that, I withdraw the amendment, you'll have the balance of my time.
Speaker 1
I appreciate you generally offering amendment on behalf of mister Jackson and withdrawing. Any other really is last call for last call. Title two, conservation. Alright. For the final time, hearing none, title two is closed.
Alright. Are there amendments to Title Three? Missus Takuda is recognized.
Speaker 20
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I seek recognition to call up amendment number 107.
Speaker 1
Miss Takuta's amendment at desk number 107. The clerk will report the title of the amendment.
Speaker 1
Mister, order. Bacon reserves the point. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. I now recognize the general lady distinguished general lady to sponsor the amendment for up to five minutes for an explanation of her amendment.
Speaker 20
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Of all committees in Congress, only one has the authority and the responsibility to speak directly for America's farmers, ranchers, and food producers. It is this committee. We are the committee farmers turn to when markets fail, when costs rise, and when federal policy threatens their ability to stay in business. The jurisdiction entrusted to us is not ceremonial.
It carries responsibility, because when farmers are hurting, the obligation to fight for relief falls here with us. And right now, farmers across this country are hurting. No matter what they grow, row crops, specialty crops, livestock, or the food products that feed American families, they share one common experience over the past year, tariffs. An $8,000,000,000 tax on the people who grow the food, fuel, and fiber on which this country runs. They didn't write these policies.
They didn't start a trade war, but they are paying for it every day. Seed costs more. Fertilizer costs more. Equipment costs more. Fuel costs more.
Margins that were already thin are disappearing. Preliminary estimates show tariffs on essential agriculture inputs alone cost producers more than $8,000,000,000 in 2025. Farmers don't need a study to tell them what that means. They already know. These tariffs are attacks on American agriculture.
And while the Supreme Court invalidated the Liberation Day tariffs, the administration's push for sweeping global tariffs means producers continue to face costs they simply cannot afford. So the question before us is straightforward. If the agriculture committee is not the place to address the economic survival of farmers, then where is it? Some may say tariffs are not traditionally part of a farm bill, but the farm bill exists to stabilize agriculture and protect producers from forces beyond their control. When federal policy directly raises the cost of producing food, that becomes an agricultural issue.
Farmers don't sit on trade committees. They don't negotiate tariff schedules. Their voice in this debate is us, and we should lean into that responsibility, not avoid it. This amendment is simple. It removes farm inputs from tariffs, not to rewrite trade policy, but to stop taxing the very producers we claim to support.
Farmers are not asking for handouts. They're asking the government to stop making their job harder. A bipartisan group of agriculture leaders recently warned this committee that indiscriminate tariffs are driving up input costs and threatening farm stability nationwide. Their first recommendation was clear: exempt farm inputs from tariffs. That is exactly what this amendment does.
And the consequences reach far beyond the farm gate. When farmers pay more, families pay more. Higher production costs become higher food prices. Every day we delay actions, another day those costs ripple through the food system. The farm bill has always succeeded because this committee accepted its responsibility to stand up for agriculture when it mattered most.
This is one of the moments we cannot claim to support farmers while ignoring an $8,000,000,000 tax, pushing them closer to the edge. Our farmers need a voice. Our ranchers need advocates, and that responsibility rests with us. So let's use the authority this committee was given. Let's deliver real relief, and let's stand with the people who make and grow things right here at home.
Our farmers, our ranchers, our food producers, they deserve to see where we all stand right now with a vote on this amendment. I urge the adoption of the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Speaker 1
General Lee yields back. Does the gentleman insist on his point of order?
Speaker 13
Mister chairman, I actually agree with almost everything she said there, except for it doesn't fall within this committee's thing. It's in ways and means. In fact, I have legislation to undo all the tariffs, but it's in the Ways and Means Committee. So I make the point of order that the amendment contains language relating to the subject matter within rule 10, jurisdiction of another committee. Adding such language to the bill would violate rule 10.
Speaker 1
The chair is prepared to roll. The amendment does, in fact, add subject matter within the Rule 10 jurisdiction of another committee. Therefore, the amendment is in violation, and the point of order is upheld.
Speaker 1
The absolutely. Gentleman is recognized on the debate on the point of order.
Speaker 20
Mister chairman, I respectfully disagree with the ruling. No other committee, as I said, speaks specifically for our farmers, ranchers, and our food producers. Farm policy, which is the basis of the farm bill, cannot be decoupled from economic viability. And you're literally undercutting the ability for every farmer, rancher, and producer to be able to survive the kinds of tariffs that they are experiencing right now. The path of least resistance would be to just simply call this not germane and abdicate any responsibility.
But right now, what they need from us is to stand up and assert our position that our farmers can no longer bear the brunt of these taxes on the most basic things they need to plant the food that we eat, to grow the protein that is essential for our survival, as well as the fuel and the fiber needed to run this country. So, with all due respect, I disagree with the ruling and would order that this is, in fact, germane.
Speaker 1
Actually, you know, we've had a rolling on this. And as much as I'm very supportive of the whole issue on tariffs and trade. It is not our jurisdiction. It's clearly ways and means, and, therefore, it would violate rule 10. So we're gonna move on unless there's
Speaker 1
Okay. Very good. The motion to table is not debatable. The question is, shall the committee table the general ladies Whoop.
Speaker 39
The motion is on appealing the ruling of the chair. No one has offered a motion to table.
Speaker 1
Motion made to table the appeal. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed are saying nay? No.
The independent chair, the ayes have it. And the motion to table.
Speaker 48
Mister Lucas votes. Mr. Austin Scott? I. Mister Austin Scott votes yes. Mister Crawford?
Mister Crawford? Mister Desjardins? Mister Desjardins, Mister Rouser. Aye. Mister Rouser votes. I.
Mr Kelly. Aye. Mister Kelly votes. Mr Bacon?
Speaker 48
Mr. Bacon votes aye. Mister Bost? Mister Bost? Mister Johnson? Mr. Johnson.
Mr Baird. Mr Baird. Mr. Mann. Mister Mann votes. Mr. Feenstra.
Speaker 48
Mister Feenstra votes I. Mrs. Miller. I. Missus Miller votes. I. Mr.
Moore. Mr. Moore votes I. Mrs. Kameck.
Mrs. Kameck votes I. Mr. Finstad. Aye.
Mister Finstad votes I. Mr. Rose. Mr. Rose. Mr. Jackson of Texas. Mr. Jackson of Texas.
Miss Dayla Cruz. Miss Dayla Cruz. Mister Nunn.
Speaker 48
Mister Nunn votes aye. Mister Van Aye. Mister Van Orden votes aye. Mr. Newhouse. Aye.
Mr. Newhouse votes aye. Mister Weed. Aye. Mr. Weed votes aye. Mister Breznahan?
Speaker 48
Mister Breznahan votes aye. Mister Messmer? Aye. Mister Messmer votes aye. Mister Harris?
I. Mister Harris votes. Mr. Taylor? I. Mister Taylor votes.
Miss Craig? No. Miss Craig votes no. Mr. David Scott? Mr. David Scott?
Mister Costa? No. Mister Costa votes no. Mister McGovern? Mister McGovern?
Miss Adams?
Speaker 48
Miss Adams votes no. Mrs. Hayes. No. Missus Hayes votes no. Miss Brown?
No. Miss Brown votes no. Miss Davis of Kansas? No. Miss Davids of Kansas votes no.
Miss Salinas? No. Miss Salinas votes no. Mister Davis of North Carolina? No.
Mister Davis of North Carolina votes no. Miss Takuda? Miss Takuda votes no. Miss Bezinski? No.
Miss Bezinski votes no. Mister Sorensen? No. Mister Sorensen votes no. Mister Vasquez?
Speaker 48
Mister Vasquez votes no. Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Mister Tandar. No.
Mister Tandar votes no. Mister Gray?
Speaker 48
Mr. Gray votes no. Miss McDonald Rivet? Miss McDonald Rivet votes no. Mister Figures? No.
Mister Figures? Mister Figures votes no. Mister Vinman? Mister Vinman? Mr. Riley.
No. Mr. Riley votes no. Mister Manion. No. Mister Manion votes no.
Missus McLean Delaney. Missus McLean Delaney. Miss Pingree? No. Miss Pingree votes no.
Mister Carbojal? No. Mister Carbojal votes no.
Speaker 48
recorded. Mister Desjardins is not recorded. Aye. Mister Desjardins votes aye. Mister Rose is not recorded.
Speaker 48
Mister Rose votes yes. How am I recorded? Yeah. Mister Jackson of Texas is not recorded. I vote aye.
Mr. Jackson of Texas votes aye. How's mister boss recorded? Mister Boss is not recorded. Aye. Mister boss votes. I.
Crawford. Mr. Crawford is not recorded. Yes. Mister Crawford votes. Johnson.
Mister Johnson is not recorded.
Speaker 1
Everybody keep on track. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote? If not, you know, somebody just committed a April.
Speaker 48
Missus McLean Delaney is not recorded. Aye. Missus McLean Delaney votes no.
Speaker 1
If all other members voted, anybody wish to change their vote? If not, the clerk will report the vote.
Speaker 1
Lay the appeal when the table is passed. Alright. Still working on title three. Mister Gray is recognized. Yeah.
Mister Gray's got an amendment at the desk. Mister chairman, have.
Speaker 1
Amendment Miss Gray has amendment number 75 at the desk. The clerk shall report the title of the amendment.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the amendment shall be considered read. I now recognize the distinguished gentleman, the sponsor of the amendment, for up to five minutes for an explanation.
Speaker 49
Of their amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Trade is essential to American agriculture. The United States Mexico Canada agreement provides the certainty that farmers depend on. It secures duty-free access to our top markets and ensures that trade across North America operates under clear rules. Our neighbors, Canada and Mexico, are some of our most dependable export markets.
Together, they purchase nearly one-third of all US agricultural exports, supporting tens of billions of dollars in farm income and more than a million American jobs. When trade relationships appear unpredictable, it affects planting decisions, financing, and long-term planning. My amendment simply requires a report to Congress on how any changes to USMCA or a failure to renew it would impact America's farmers, ranchers, and rural communities. At a time when uncertainty already weighs heavily on rural America, this amendment is about accountability and informed decision-making. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. Yields back. Any members seek recognition to speak on Mr. Gray's amendment? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mister Cause is recognized.
Five minutes.
Speaker 6
Thank you very much. I support this amendment. And I remember, as those of you here, when the president, in 2016, successfully campaigned against NAFTA. Now let's be clear. I think most of you know that I'm generally opposed to tariffs, and I supported and saluted the Supreme Court decision of last week because it's the jurisdiction of, I think, the Congress to deal with both treaties and trade agreements.
This amendment really speaks to a success that the president had. He said he would revise NAFTA. Didn't call it NAFTA 2, of course. It had to be rebranded the USMCA, the best, beautiful, greatest trade agreement ever known to mankind, I think, when he signed it in 2020. And it had a good provision, among others, and that is every five years it would be reviewed.
Well, guess what? This is the fifth year in terms of review. Why would not the president use this hallmark treaty that he negotiated with his ambassador, trade ambassador, to work out any differences between ourselves and our two largest trading partners, Mexico and Canada, instead of insulting Canada as a fifty-first state. I mean, that is not the way to engender good trade relations with our neighbors. The fact of the matter is that the USMCA is a good agreement, and it should be the vehicle that is used to resolve any differences between ourselves and our neighbors.
And this amendment speaks to that fact. And for the life of me, I can't understand why. I can give all sorts of examples. 85% of America's farmers receive their potash from Canada. California, 40% of our wine market went to Canada.
You cannot find a bottle of California wine in a Canadian store or restaurant today. They're doing what they should be doing, giving the treatment that their good neighbor has sort of suddenly, you know, revoked on them. So it makes a lot of sense to support this amendment. It would make a lot more sense, I think, if this administration would simply take advantage of this agreement that they, in fact, put in effect in 2020 instead of this, you know, tit for tat and insulting our neighbors. So for a lot of good reasons, and I could give a lot more, I think this amendment makes sense, and I support it.
Speaker 1
And gentlemen, Yields, I'll take, let me take the opportunity to offer my five minutes. I appreciate the gentleman's effort to ensure the US agriculture products are favored and well representative in the United States, Mexico, Canada agreement. Mhmm. Whether it be dairy or forestry issues, we must ensure that US agriculture products are given a level playing field under USMCA. To that end, I am committed to a robust USMCA agenda following the passage of the Farm Bill, to ensure that all agriculture angles are considered.
And I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment, and encourage my colleagues to vote yes. Other members seek recognition. Ranking member.
Speaker 2
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, our economy is incredibly integrated with those of Canada to the north and Mexico to the south. Fostering those trade relationships is healthy. It's good for the American farm economy, and the data bears this out. American farmers supply nearly 55% of Canada's ag imports, and an impressive 70% to Mexico.
Put another way, Mexico and Canada are buying what our farmers are selling. When Trump negotiated USMCA in his first term, he described it as a truly historic, wonderful, and the best agreement we've ever made. But he changes his mind more often than he changes his tariff rates. And apparently, now he thinks the deal is unfair. In February, he publicly asked, who would ever sign a thing like this?
Mister president, you did. If you feel we've been taken advantage of, it was you who negotiated that deal. He clearly doesn't understand the negative impact on US ag if the trade deal is not renewed. This committee should support this amendment because having more information about the consequences of the Trump administration's actions is important, as we consider how to approach trade in North America. We should be going into USMCA with our eyes wide open and a full understanding of what will happen to our country if the president decides on a whim to do away with the deal.
So, mister chairman, and to my colleagues, I'm glad to support this amendment. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in seeking this common-sense solution so we can continue to work and trade effectively with our largest and nearest partners. With that, I yield.
Speaker 1
No. That's good, because you just about talked me out of it. Does any other member seek recognition to speak?
Speaker 1
Mister Gray's amendment. Seeing no other conversation, oh, this can't Missus Lina's too. Recognized.
Speaker 18
Thank you, mister chairman, and I appreciate my colleagues' amendments this evening. Oregon is the sixth-largest state in terms of trade per capita. So we are really feeling the impact right now of the Trump administration's tariffs, both on our exports and our imports. And this is hitting my specialty crops especially hard. Eliminating tariffs on feed, farm machinery, and other essential inputs would be so incredibly helpful.
But I certainly think we need to understand better what any impacts from the any changes to the USMCA might bring and might mean for crops all across this country and what our producers are doing right now. But I would also encourage my colleagues to urge the trade representative to come before this committee to make sure that we hear from him directly, and we can ask questions of the administration on what they're thinking about trade more broadly. But I do support this gray amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 10
Thank you, mister chairman. I just want to certainly support it as well and the comments from my colleagues. And I think we should all be supportive of generating additional data and information in this area. We know that our farmers are struggling right now, and we have a responsibility, I believe, to understand the consequences of the government's policy decision. So I'll support the amendment and encourage my colleagues to do the same.
Speaker 1
Jungle Yields, any other members seek recognition? Speak on the amendment? Seeing no further conversation, the question is on the amendment by Mister Gray. All those in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Aye.
Those opposed are saying no. Independent chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed. Other members, any other members, seek further debate or amendments to title three? Miss Brown's wreck has an amendment to the desk. The clerk shall report the title of the amendment.
I believe number 127.
Speaker 1
Now recognize the distinguished lady for the sponsored amendment for up to five minutes for an explanation of her amendment.
Speaker 14
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment is a direct response to the number one concern that we are hearing from farmers in Ohio and across the country: tariffs. We know that farmers and ranchers are on the front lines of global trade and market fluctuations, and this administration's tariff agenda has created unnecessary and unacceptable uncertainty. My amendment would ensure that before the administration changes tariffs on agricultural imports, Congress and the public receive a clear report on the potential economic impacts. This is a common-sense measure.
It doesn't tie the administration's hands. It simply ensures folks on the ground have the information they need to anticipate and respond to market-moving economic decisions. Farmers need reliable information to make planting, marketing, and investment decisions. And when sudden tariffs are imposed, it doesn't just affect farmers. The impact ripples through rural communities, increasing input costs, disrupting processing and logistics, and hurting local businesses that depend on agriculture income.
By requiring a forward-looking economic impact report, producers can get armed with the information they need to plan, and Congress can ensure economic impacts are appropriately weighed in trade policy decision making. This administration's trade policy can be summed up as tweet first, write a check later. Time and time again, farmers have been forced to rely on trade mitigation payments that fall short of making them whole, pick winners and losers in the marketplace, and ignore the broader impact and economic ripple effects on rural communities. Coming on the heels of the recent Supreme Court decisions, which reaffirmed that the tariff authority resides with Congress, it is clear that Congress must take an active role to ensure transparency, accountability, and stability in our trade policies. Farmers should not be collateral damage in a chaotic trade agenda.
They need stability and predictability, not sudden announcements that upend markets overnight. So, mister chairman, that is what my amendment attempts to do, compel any administration to show the impacts of proposed tariffs on the farm economy, while giving farmers another tool in the toolbox in order to plan for the future. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 1
The only yields back. Thank her. Other members seek recognition to speak on Miss Brown's Miss Doctor Adams.
Speaker 10
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do seek recognition to speak on the amendment. I am in support of this amendment. Farm groups across the country are making it clear that they want the farm administrate the Trump administration to take a different approach on trade. And so this comes after the ruling from the US Supreme Court, which struck down the Trump tariffs.
Farm leaders reacted quickly and are urging the president not to reimpose tariffs. Their message is simple. Farmers need stability. They need reliable markets, and certainly to plan, invest, and stay competitive. But shortly after the court's decision, the president announced new global tariffs.
That announcement is now creating new uncertainty, and we need to just pause a bit. That's why I support this amendment to have the administration submit reports to Congress on the tariff effects on consumer prices, farm revenue, and input costs. And I would encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and thank Miss Brown for introducing it.
Speaker 1
General Lee yields back. Other amendments, members, mister Costa, recognize five minutes.
Speaker 6
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think we all have had a lot of experience. In the last year, the impact of this tariff war that the president has initiated. I remember last spring it was 90 countries, 90 days, no exceptions. And then the next day there were exceptions, and then there were modifications, and then there was, you know, threats and counter-threats.
And I've been very, you know, involved in this. California, and I spoke about it earlier in terms of our agricultural productivity, 44 to 46% of our agricultural production in California is exported. And the impacts on these markets, after Trump won, resulted in loss of market share. We produce 90, 75% of the world's almonds and pistachios. When the tariffs went in with China and India as an example, Australia started planting almonds.
We lost market share. We see us losing market share in the Midwest in soybeans and corn with China going to Argentina. I mean, there's a whole host of examples. Our agricultural industry around the country works really hard to establish market share, and to be competitive. And when we have a level playing field, we can, and we have proven to be competitive.
And it seems to me that the trade promotional agreement, TPP, or TTIP back then working together is a much more common sense way to, in fact, establish fair boundaries on reciprocal trade agreements. And I hope that as a result of the Supreme Court's decision, this amendment, mister Gray's amendment and others, that will come back to a point where we allow our farmers to do what they do best, which is compete when they have a level playing field. And I think this amendment speaks to that effect, and, hopefully, we'll get an opportunity to have our trade ambassador come, and we can have a rational discussion on how we go forward. I know that, there are a lot of markets out there that we can compete in. But, this, you know, I'll see you 10%.
I'll raise you 15%. I'll go back to 10%. No. I really meant 25%. Farmers markets like certainty.
They like stability. And the chaotic nature that has been created as a result of the effects of this last year have proven evident to really destroy market prices. And, therefore, I think we've got to come back to a place where we are able to conduct our trade agreements in a traditional way in which we are trusted and respected and not seem to be going off to the threats in the highest bidder. So I would, for a whole lot of reasons, support this amendment. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Yield back. Gentleman yields back. Miss Buzensky is recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 22
Thank you, mister chairman. I just wanna speak out in support of Congresswoman Brown's amendment. You know, this amendment is really just about transparency and accountability. It doesn't tie the administration's hands. It simply requires that they lay out the facts before modifying tariffs on agricultural products.
And just to echo a lot of what my colleagues have already talked about, you know, I'd like to emphasize that bankruptcies have jumped by 46% in 2024. Of that, 40% were Midwestern farmers. At the same time, farm operating loans increased by 30%, meaning more producers are borrowing just to stay afloat. And this is just to speak to the tremendous pressures that our growers are facing. And so I think, truly, they want access to markets.
They want to know how these tariffs are going to impact what they're growing and how that's going to impact the market that they're trying to sell for. So before we make these changes, that could drive up these costs even higher, I just believe that Congress should at least see the data and conduct basic due diligence before an administration takes these on. So I'll yield back. Thank you.
Speaker 1
General Lee yields back. Any other members seek recognition to speak? Are the ranking members recognized?
Speaker 2
I'll be brief, Mr. Chairman. I just wanna thank the vice ranking member for her amendment and lend my support to it as well.
Speaker 1
Any other members seek recognition? If not, I'll take the liberty of my time. I thank the lady for bringing forward this amendment. You know, President Trump, in coordination with Secretary Rawlins and Ambassador Greer, are working hard to ensure American producers are treated fairly in the global markets. USDA and USTR already have the authority to issue joint reports on the economic outlook of agriculture tariffs, and they have done so.
But these reports should not be weaponized as bureaucratic red tape to slow down the president's agenda. And for this reason, I'll be voting no on this amendment. I encourage my colleagues to do the same. If there's no other conversation, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Aye.
Those opposed it by saying no. No. Independent chair, the noes have it, the amendment is not agreed to. A recorded vote has been requested pursuant to committee rule 3 I 2. Further proceedings on the amendment shall be postponed.
Additional, are there additional amendments to title three? Mister Vasquez is recognized as an amendment to the desk.
Speaker 26
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk, amendment number 141.
Speaker 1
Very good. Mister Vasquez has an amendment at the desk, and the clerk will report the title.
Speaker 1
me give me a second here. Good. The, without objection, amendment will be considered as read. I now recognize the distinguished gentleman from Mexico. The sponsored amendment for up to five minutes for an explanation of his amendment.
Speaker 26
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In New Mexico, ranching is a $1,000,000,000 industry, and it's a tradition. Our ranchers are tough. They get up at the crack of dawn every day and do whatever it takes to get American beef to the tables. But in recent years, ranchers have faced a host of headwinds.
New World screw worm, severe drought, tariffs, wildfire, and rising input costs. These are all squeezing profits and forcing premature livestock sales. And how has the administration thanked them for their hard work in the face of adversity? By announcing billion-dollar beef imports from Argentina. That's not America first.
That's putting Argentina's ranchers first, and leaving American ranchers in the dust. I've spoken directly with ranchers in my district who have said these Argentinian beef imports are a slap in the face to their hard work and to our heritage, and won't bring down beef prices at the grocery store. So I think it's enough with the bailouts on the backs of Americans. My amendment would condemn the administration's push to prioritize Argentine beef at the expense of American cattle ranchers. It would also require the USDA to report in detail how Argentinian beef imports are hurting domestic cattle producers, prices, and rural economies.
I say let's support our own ranchers and put a stop to these harmful trade policies. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields back. I thank him. Many other members seek recognition to speak on this amendment. Ms. Davis recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 16
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Kansas is a proud cattle state, and Kansas beef industry, bless you. The Kansas beef industry generates $13,590,000,000 in output and supports more than 45,000 jobs statewide. I consistently hear from producers that amid challenging economic conditions in farm country, cattle ranching is a bright spot. President Trump's recent executive order to allow 4 times as much beef from Argentina to enter the US this year undermines American cattle ranchers and increases market volatility.
Moreover, economists estimate this will fail to meaningfully lower grocery prices. I am absolutely ready to work in a bipartisan way to invest in American cattle producers and take steps to address the high food costs that are squeezing American families. However, increasing beef imports from Argentina is counterproductive, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thanks. The general ladies shield back. Other members who seek recognition to speak, miss figures.
Speaker 34
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a couple of questions for my colleague, Mister Vasquez. Are you aware of any shortages in beef production here by American farmers?
Speaker 26
Absolutely. So beef prices have been elevated largely because of those beef shortages. In fact, the US lost roughly 17% of Cal Ranch operations, more than 150,000 ranches since 2017.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields back. Any other members seek recognition to speak on the amendment? If not, I'll take the opportunity to weigh in here. I thank the gentleman from Mexico for offering this amendment. This amendment would ensure the impact of additional imports of fresh beef from Argentina and US producers is carefully studied.
We must always strive to support US cattle ranchers above all else, which is why I'm happy to support this amendment.
Speaker 1
The same. Any other member wish to be recognized? Hearing no further conversation, mister Scott, I just recognize.
Speaker 5
I'm not opposed to amendment, but most of what we're importing from Argentina is lean trimming that gets blended with US beef and, you know, for the consumer and ground beef. That's just the facts of what is being imported. And I hope we do get a detailed report that shows how what the market should not have moved, the magnitude that it did when the announcement was made. I know it settled back down, but the US beef herd is at one of the lowest, it's at the lowest point in decades, and it's gonna take a while for us to recover. That, with that, I yield.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanna lend my support as well to Mr. Vasquez's amendment, and I hope my colleagues will support it.
Speaker 1
Ranking member yields back. Kim? Is there someone else I miss? Yeah. Doctor Adams is recognized.
Speaker 10
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to lend support to this. You know, importing beef from Argentina undermines US producers. The US cattle herd is at historic lows right now.
For years, cattle producers have suffered through bad markets, and right now, they're finally recouping some of those losses, and decisions like the one to import more from Argentina hurt our producers. So I do want to support this. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 1
General lady yields back. Any other members seek recognition? Seeing none, hearing no further conversation, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Aye.
Those opposed by saying no. Any opinion in the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. Any other members seek recognition for the introduction of an amendment under title three trade. Any other members seek recognition under Title Three? I'm gonna say it 3 times this time.
Any member seek recognition for the further debate or an amendment under title three. Hearing non-title three is now jurisdiction. Closed. What? Yeah.
Right. I know. I promise you all we'd be out here by 12:59.
Speaker 1
We're actually gonna leave right now. So, the committee shall stand in recess until the call of chair. We will reconvene tomorrow at 8 AM to consider amendments.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.